SHAM LAL ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS August 16, 1978 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 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 : 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 c
in the two States a massive trek -0f the drinking population from the border 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 [1979j [ S.C.R.
A for the liquor shops are declared in both States, the exercise in prohi- bition 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. 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.