States’ attempt to circumvent the ban on liquor vends by de-notifying State highways found limited favour with the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Dealing with a petition against Chandigarh administration’s decision to classify certain State highway roads as “major district roads”, the SC said there was no fault if the de-notified state highway was within city limits.
The Bench observed, “There are city roads and there are roads outside the city. The idea behind our judgment was that in a fast moving traffic, you should not be under the influence of liquor.”
The SC, while making this observation, was cautious not to pass any order as it asked the petitioner to study this aspect and report back on whether any of the de-notified State highways were indeed roads with fast moving traffic extending beyond city limits.
An order is expected to be passed on July 11, the next date of hearing.
The petitioner, Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh, approached the apex court complaining that despite the ban imposed by the SC removing liquor vends situated 500 metres from State and national highways, the Chandigarh administration made a mockery of this decision by de-notifying State highway roads. The petitioner pointed out that several States had followed suit and changed the nomenclature of State highways to arterial roads and district roads.
The court was of the view that if State highway roads run within the city limits, the State or UT administration is competent to call them as district roads.
“You think on what we are telling you. We will pass an order next Tuesday,” the Bench added.