Affirmation of Supreme Court’s prohibition on highway liquor shops with Meghalaya’s 500 m exemption and a mandatory Secretary-level review within four weeks, binding on the Excise Department.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MC(PIL)/4/2025 of ARBIANGKAM KHARSOHMAT Vs THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. |
| CNR | MLHC010011482025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice I. P. Mukerji, Chief Justice |
| Court | High Court of Meghalaya |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice I. P. Mukerji, Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Affirms Supreme Court precedent; binding on the Excise Department of Meghalaya |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms The State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu & anr (C.A. Nos. 12164–12166 of 2016 & 2017) |
| Type of Law | Excise policy / Public Interest Litigation / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether licences for sale of liquor can be granted along national and state highways in Meghalaya in light of SC directions and the exemption for Meghalaya from the 500 m rule |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that the Supreme Court’s blanket prohibition on highway liquor shops applies but Meghalaya is exempt from the 500 m distance requirement. Since highway-licensing is a policy matter, the Excise Department must verify any local‐body NOC, refer the application to a Secretary‐level officer, and decide within four weeks under Article 142 of the Constitution. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Dept. & ors v. K. Balu & anr, C.A. Nos. 12164–12166 of 2016 (15 Dec 2016) and same C.A. (31 Mar 2017) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Article 142 Constitutional powers; SC directions in paragraphs 24–25 of the K. Balu judgments |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner filed a PIL based on a newspaper report that the Pommura Dorbar Shnong granted an NOC for four to five wine stores adjoining a national highway; HNYF opposed; Excise Department’s file and status of any licence application were unclear, prompting the Court to direct verification and Secretary-level review. |
| Citations | 2025:MLHC:782-DB; C.A. Nos. 12164–12166 of 2016 & 2017 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Excise Department and Government of Meghalaya |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and administrative authorities considering highway-licensing questions |
| Follows | The State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu & anr (15 Dec 2016; 31 Mar 2017) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court confirms that Meghalaya is exempt from the 500 m distance requirement under SC’s K. Balu judgments.
- Any local-body NOC (e.g., Dorbar Shnong certificate) must be verified by the Excise Department.
- Applications must be referred to an officer not below Secretary rank for decision.
- A strict four-week timeline is imposed for the Secretary to confirm, modify, or reject the NOC.
- The directions issue under Article 142, underscoring the binding nature of this review procedure.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- PIL Entertained Despite Formal Flaws
The petition was admitted in the public interest, dispensing with non-compliance with PIL rules. - Reliance on SC Precedents
The Court extracted paragraphs 24–25 from K. Balu (2016 & 2017) to define the ban on highway liquor shops and Meghalaya’s exemption. - Policy Matter Identified
Noting that liquor-licensing along highways is a policy decision, the Court refrained from imposing an outright prohibition. - Verification and Review Mandate
Directed the Excise Department to confirm the Dorbar Shnong NOC, refer the matter to a Secretary-level officer, and decide within four weeks. - Article 142 Invocation
Emphasized that these directions are issued under the Court’s constitutional power for complete justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- A newspaper report indicated local Dorbar Shnong had granted NOC for multiple wine stores adjoining a national highway.
- HNYF opposed new licences due to health and accident risks.
- The Excise Department had not taken any visible action on the licence application.
Respondents (Advocate General)
- Could not confirm existence of any proposal or pending application for wine-store licences.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a PIL after an article in the Meghalaya Times (28 July 2025) reported that the Pommura Dorbar Shnong proposed a no-objection certificate for setting up four to five wine stores adjoining a national highway. The Hynniewtrep National Youth Front opposed any new licences, citing health and safety concerns. The Excise Department’s record of any licence application or approval remained unclear. The High Court was asked to prevent licence issuance pending clarity and to enforce Supreme Court directions on highway liquor shops.
Statutory Analysis
- Quoted and applied Supreme Court directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution (K. Balu, paras 24–25).
- Identified that paragraph 24 prohibits licences on highways, and paragraph 25 exempts Meghalaya from the 500 m distance rule.
- No additional statutory provision was interpreted beyond enforcing the SC orders.
Procedural Innovations
- Dispensation with strict compliance of High Court PIL rules where public interest is evident.
- Mandatory referral of local-body NOCs and licence applications to a Secretary‐level officer for timely decision.
- Imposition of a four-week deadline for administrative action.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – High Court reaffirms Supreme Court’s K. Balu directives for highway liquor-licensing.
Citations
- 2025:MLHC:782-DB (High Court of Meghalaya, 30 Aug 2025)
- Civil Appeal Nos. 12164–12166 of 2016 (15 Dec 2016)
- Civil Appeal Nos. 12164–12166 of 2016 (31 Mar 2017)