HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.312 OF 2014 DATED:22.12.2014 Between:
Prof. P.L. Vishweshwer Rao and others … Petitioners And State of Telangana Represented by its Chief Secretary Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.312 OF 2014 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) Apart from the defect in the prayer portion (b) and its mode of challenge, we find that in this matter the Government has taken a policy decision in relation to an existing law, which is still valid and subsisting. By the impugned Government Order the State of Telangana under the provisions of Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has adopted the existing law to make Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 2007’), which was in force as on 01.06.2014, with modifications as stated in the schedule. Section 101 of the Act empowers both the States to adopt any existing law either as it is or with modification and this is exactly has been done. By way of modification, Rules 2007 have been modified as follows:
1. Throughout the Rules, except occurring in the citation of the Act viz., in rule 2, for the words “Andhra Pradesh” substitute the word “Telangana”.
2. In rule 3, in sub-rule (2), delete the expression “within 50 Kms from the area of the shop.”
3. In rule 4, sub-rule (2), in item (ii), delete the expression “within 50 Kms”.
2. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the exercise of substitution in modification 1 above. Vide modification 2, distance norm in Rule 3 in sub-rule (2) is sought to be obliterated by the Legislature and similarly vide modification 3, the distance norm in Rule 4 sub-rule (2) has also been deleted. The aforesaid change is also challenged. We think that why this change has been effected is the mindset of the Legislature. Nothing has been indicated by the petitioners how it is irrational or arbitrary. It is submitted that in past earlier distance norms worked well. According to us, it is for the Government to think whether distance norms will be there or not. We find that the petitioners have made some suggestions.
3. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot interfere with the policy decision taken in the matter unless it is shown patently unconstitutional and contrary to the parent laws. As we have stated nothing has been indicated in the body of the petition that this change is in conflict with any of the aforesaid provisions.
4. Accordingly, we do not pass any order in this writ petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. However, it is for the Government to think whether the suggestion given by the petitioners is worth to be considered or not. The Court cannot give any mandate in this regard. Undoubtedly the Government will take care of any possible health hazards or any potentially social health problem, not maintaining distance norms. The Court presume that the Government is conscious about these things. However, this order will not debar the Government to rethink in the matter, taking note of the suggestion of the petitioners.
5. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 22.12.2014 bnr