Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that extending the operating hours of bars and nightclubs beyond midnight could have detrimental effects on the social fabric of the Indian society, observing that excessive drinking and indulging in nightlife is still a social taboo.
The HC has made the observations while dismissing a petition filed by D A Bodega Hospitality and others seeking directions to operate beyond midnight in Panchkula as granted to bars and discotheques in Gurgaon and Faridabad.
“While we may not be understood to discourage nightclubs, 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. A few states in India have applied absolute prohibition and most of the states have laid down a time schedule for selling of liquor…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 HC has observed, adding that it was expected that the state would take into consideration the observations while framing excise policy in the future.
The court was also of the view that a balance has to be struck between the amount of revenue being earned vis-à-vis maintaining and nurturing the culture of the state.
Refusing to grant any relief to the petitioners, a division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has held that once the petitioners have obtained licence under the excise policy and are doing their business on the terms laid down, they cannot turn around.
“Principle of ‘take it or leave it’ has to be accepted and applied. 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 find it to be more lucrative,” the bench has held.
The petitioners contention that their business has been affected because of the change of the excise policy for the subsequent year was also found to be without basis. “A person who is carrying on liquor trade would know what is in store for him for the entire year. Change in excise policy for each year is well known to all,” the bench has held.