Sham Lal etc. v. Union of India and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. R. Krishna Iyer
D. A. Desai
O. Chinnappa Reddy
Judgment Date: 1978-08-16
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions dismissed with costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions dismissed with costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sham Lal and Others

Respondents

Union of India and Others

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sham Lal etc. v. Union of India and Others concerns the validity of Rule 37 of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules 1956 as amended by Haryana, which designated the 1st and 7th of every month as holidays for liquor shops. The Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and the power to make rules under s. 59( f )(v) are invoked as the legal basis for such regulatory day-patterns. Haryana’s amendment sought to harmonize the dry-day regime with Punjab’s statute to ensure effective prohibition along the border. The petitioners challenged the rule’s validity on grounds that the amendment encroaches upon the statutory framework and could undermine the broader policy objective of teetotalism. The Court stressed the practical imperative of uniformity in prohibition across neighboring states: if Punjab and Haryana declare different dry days, cross-border traffic and a mass shift of drinkers would frustrate the statutory purpose in border districts. The decision in the Punjab batch of writ petitions, and the court’s reliance on that judgment, informs this case, leading to a dismissal of the petitions. The judgment, delivered by Justice Krishna Iyer with Justices Desai and Reddy concurring, ultimately directs a uniform dry-day regime for both states and advocates caution against liquor lobby pressures.

Provisions of Law Cited

Punjab Excise Act, 1914, s. 59( f )(v)Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956, Rule 37 (as amended by Haryana)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenged Rule 37 as amended by Haryana under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, contending that the rulemaking power and the imposition of new dry-days were not in consonance with the statutory framework and could undermine the ban on liquor by creating cross-border inconsistencies. They urged a uniform policy across Punjab and Haryana to prevent enforcement inefficiency arising from divergent dry-day practices.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued for uniform teetotalism days across neighboring states to preserve the efficacy of prohibition, asserting the necessity of aligning the dry-day calendar through rulemaking under s. 59( f )(v) of the Punjab Excise Act and urging dismissal of the petitions on the grounds that the amendments are within regulatory power and essential to achieve the statutory objective.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kauhal et al. v. Union of India	[1979] 1 SCR 122	Positive	The judgment states that it followed this decision, applying its principles to uphold the need for uniform days across the states.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

159 SHAM LAL ETC. _v._ UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS _August_ 16, 1978 A # • [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] B _Punjab Excise_ _Act_ _1914---Section_ 59(/)(v). _Punjab Liquor licence Rules_ 1956 _Rule_ _37-Efject of_ _A1ne11d1nent_ _by_ _State_ _of_ _Haryana-Desirability_ _of_ _nlighbourif1g States to follow uniform policy in regard to prohibition._ Rule 37 of the Punjab Llquor Licence Rules 1956 as amended by the Staie of Haryana, made the 1st and 7th of every month a holiday for liquor 3hops. 'Tti.e petitioners assailed its validity. Dismissing the writ petitions : ## c IIELD· : As Haryana and Punjab are neighbouring States, identical days ot teetotalism have to be declared in both States failing whiCh the exercise in prohi· bition will prove futile, at least in the border districts. If the days are different in the two States a massive trek -0f the drinking population from the border D districts of one State to the other would ensue, thereby defeating the statutory pnpose. [159H, l60A-BJ _P._ ~v. _Kau:i,hal_ _etc._ v. _Union_ _of_ _India etc._ [1979] 1 SCR 122, followed. (For appearance refer to pages 125-126). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. The State of Haryana, like tjle other States of India, has on its statute book a legislation for liquor regulation and fiscal levy. In fact, it is the same as the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. To bring in progressive restriction in the sale of alcohol, rule 37 was amended in Haryana making the 1st and the 7th of every month a holiday for liquor shops. This rule and the statutory source of power to inake rules, namely, s. 59(f) (v) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, haYe beeu challenged before us on a variety of grounds and we have heard counsel on both sides. The arguments being identical with those aheady considered by us in the Punjab batch of writ petitions that judgment govern~ these cases also, and therefore we annex it to this judgment and we do not think it necessary to launch on any addi tional discussion. A few other submissions, which hardly merit mention were made we do n0t deal with them. One cautionary signal we would like to sound. Haryana and Punjab are neighbouring States and unless identical days of teetotalism E F G H 160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979j [ S.C.R. A for the liquor shops are declared in both States, the exercise in prohibition will prove futile, at least in the border districts. If the days are different in the two States, there will be a massive trek of the drinking populatiou from the border districts of one State to the other, thus defeating the statutory purpose. We hope that liquor lobby notwith standing, the State, will streamline the 'dry' days in both the States. B For reasons given in writ petition Nos. 4021-4022 of 78 etc., we di5miss the present batch of writ petitions with costs. (One hearing ~). -~ N.V.K. ## ' ### \