All-night pubs harm social fabric: HC dismisses Panchkula bar plea

While dismissing the petitions, a division bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, “…if the people are allowed to stay all night at bars and pubs, the social strain of Indian society is seriously hampered. Excess drinking and indulging in night life in Indian society is still a social taboo. While we may not be understood to discourage night clubs but the policy makers ought to take into consideration the Indian culture and also consider that the percentage of literacy and mature understanding and repercussions of excessive drinking is yet a far reaching goal.”

The high court said while few of the states in India have applied absolute prohibition, most of the states have laid down a time schedule for selling liquor. And once a time schedule is laid down, there should be no provision for granting extension of the said time for the entire night by taking extra money, the court added.

“A balance has to be struck between the amount of revenue being earned vis-à-vis maintaining and nurturing the culture of the state. It is expected that the state shall take into consideration our observations while framing the future excise policy,” said the bench while dismissing the plea.

The petitioners contended that they are holding L-4/L-5 licence of bars/pubs situated in Panchkula district (granted for the year 2023-24). As per the Excise Policy of 2023-24, bars and pubs could remain open up to 2 am in the state with a provision to further extend up to 8 am on payment of additional annual fee of Rs 20 lakh per annum.

The petitioners said that duration of the policy for the year 2024-25 is from June 12, 2024, to June 11, 2025. While the other conditions for grant of L-4 and L-5 licence are the same as were in the previous policy, the respondents (Haryana government) have changed the hours of sale in bars and pubs and it has been laid down that the licenced bar for L-4/L-5/L-10E/L-12C/L-12G would be allowed to remain open up to 12 am (midnight) in the state. However, the timings of the licenced bars in Faridabad and Gurugram districts can be further extended up to 2 am on payment of additional annual fee of Rs 20 lakh per annum.

The petitioners’ counsel, Senior Advocate Anand Chhibbar, argued that the petitioners had after receiving the licences for the year 2023-24 developed the infrastructure for continuing the bars/pubs for the entire night. Night clubs have been set up by them and the people attending the said pubs come from well-educated families and there have been no untoward incident. The petitioners are running hospitality business and have spent crores. By making an amendment in Clause 9.8.8 of the Excise Policy 2024-25, the petitioners have been deprived of their right to continue their business late beyond 12 midnight. It is further submitted that the petitioners have suffered huge loss on account of said Rule which applies to their district, namely, Panchkula, while similarly situated other licence holders of L-4 and L-5 operating in Gurugram and Faridabad have been allowed to continue to operate their business for the entire night, albeit on payment of extra fees which the petitioners are also ready to pay but they have been ousted from applying and consideration for extension. The counsel contended that similarly situated persons cannot be allowed to be treated by different yardsticks.

The state counsel, Sharan Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, supporting the policy said that the petitioners have applied for licences under the policy of 2024-25 and have been granted licences and the conditions would, therefore, be binding upon them and it is for the state to frame the policy. So far as the time schedule for sale in pubs and bars of any areas or locality is concerned, the power vests with the state government and the Finance Commissioner under the Act and the Rules, submitted the state counsel.

The time schedule of 2023-24 was being adopted, however, on account of the decision taken by the council of ministers, the policy decision for two districts was taken. It is fairly stated that while the reasons may not be mentioned in the order, there has been detailed deliberations by the ministers under the chairmanship of chief minister, and therefore, there is no interference warranted and the time schedule can be different for two different localities, the state counsel further contended.

While refraining itself from examining the policy decisions of council of ministers, the bench said that “the entire excise policy is itself having different yardsticks for different districts”, thus rejecting the contention of the petitioners that there is any discrimination meted out to the licence holders of Panchkula.

The bench said, “Once the petitioners have obtained licence under the said Excise Policy and are doing their business in the terms laid down therein, they cannot turn around and challenge part of the said policy which does not suit them. Principle of ‘take it or leave it’ has to be accepted and applied in contractual matters. Where a person wants to do liquor trade, he would have to accept the conditions as framed by the state. No one has stopped the petitioners from doing business at Gurugram, if they found it to be more lucrative.”