Disposed

Uppili Sandhya, v. The Superintendent, Prohibition and

Telangana HC22 Dec 2014PIL/208/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Hyderabad addressed a PIL challenging the establishment of a liquor shop near Simhachalam Devasthanam on grounds that distance norms were inadequate for temple sanctity and deity movement. The Court held that while the shop complied with existing norms, norms may vary for temple towns. It directed the Government to review distance norms within eight weeks upon representation by t

What did the court decide?

Direct the Government to review distance norms for liquor shops in temple towns upon representation by temple authorities within eight weeks and order relocation if warranted.

Uppili Sandhya, Vs The Superintendent… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE

¶3

OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶9

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.208 OF 2014

¶10

DATED: 22-12-2014

¶11

Between:

¶12

Uppili Sandhya .. Petitioner

¶13

And

¶14

The Superintendent, Prohibition &

¶15

Excise Department, Gajuvaka,

¶16

Visakhapatnam and others .. Respondents

¶17

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶18

AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶20

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.208 OF 2014

¶21

ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶22

This petition has been filed praying for a direction upon the respondent officials to take necessary steps so that a liquor shop is not established in and around Simhachalam Devasthanam, both up hills and down hills, including the establishment of a liquor shop in Madhavi Kalyana Mandapam. A further

¶23

direction is also sought for removal of liquor shops from the existing site.

¶24

It was stated in the petition that without maintaining distance norms, a liquor shop was permitted to be set up.

¶25

It appears that a distance norm of 100 metres from a temple has been fixed to allow setting up of a liquor shop. In this particular case, the liquor shop has been established nearly two kilo metres away from the temple. Therefore, it has been established maintaining distance norms.

¶26

However, learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the temple authorities submitted that to maintain the sanctity of the temple and movement of the deity, the distance norm is not adequate. According to him, on particular festive occasions, the deity is brought to the down hills location of the temple and travels through the road where the present liquor shop is located. As a result, the sanctity and atmosphere is totally defiled because of the liquor shop.

¶27

We are of the view that location of the liquor shop is not in derogation of the distance norms prescribed by the Government. Until and unless a different distance norm is laid down having regard to the location of the temple town and also the movement of the deity, it cannot be said that the permission granted to establish a liquor shop nearly two kilo metres away from the temple is illegal. But we are of the view that for a temple town or for the movement of the deity, the distance norms as prescribed may not be the same.

¶28

Therefore, the Government is directed to review, on a representation being made by the temple authorities, as to whether the same distance norms would be followed or not. Such decision may be taken, on a representation being made, by the Government within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of such representation. Once it is done, it would be open to the Government to ask the liquor shop owner to relocate, if warranted.

¶29

The public interest litigation is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶30

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶31

SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶32

22-12-2014

¶33

Svv

Uppili Sandhya, v. The Superintendent, Prohibition and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uppili Sandhya, v. The Superintendent, Prohibition and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Jithender Reddy Vs Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Repres

Duvvuru Chenchu Kriran Kumar, Vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests

Kudipudi Ashok, Vs The Honble High Court of Judicature

T.Dhangopal Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission

Gadu Chinni Kumari Lakshmi , Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission

K.Rajeshwar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Youth Advancement, Tourism

C.J.Karira, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Abdul Khader Quadri Vs State of Telangana