Full Text
W.P.(C)3088/2020 and CM No.10735/2020,CM No.10736/2020
THE AMBROSIA FOUNDATION SOCIETY(REGD.) Petitioner
Through; Mr.Dhananjay Singh Sehrawat, Advocate
Through: Mr.Ramesh Singh,SC with Mr.Dhananjay Mishra,Ms.Bhawna
Kataria,Advoeates for GNCTD Mr.Amit Mahajan,Advocate for UOI
CHANDNISOOD Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shlok Chandra and Ms.GauriPuri, Advocates
Through:
Respondent Mr.Ramesh Singh,SC with Kataria, Advoeates for GNCTD
Ms.Anusuya Salwan,Advocate AND
CM No. 10750/2020 CIVIL SOCIETY COUNCIL OFINDIA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Vashishtha,Advocate
AND
IF.P.(C)3088/2020and otherconnected matters page 1 of9
2020:DHC:3948-DB 9-^ j W.P.(C)3094/2020andCM No.10751/2020,CM No.10752/2020
VARUNK.BALA Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
AND
SAJAGNIJHAWAN Petitioner
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandiok,Sr.Adv.with Ms.Simran Kohli,Advocate
HON'BLEMS.JUSTICESANGITADHINGRASEHGAL
0/^ 11.05.2020 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING!
ORDER
1. Allthesepetitions,filed aspublicinterestlitigation,seek(a)direction to the GNCTD to immediately stop the sale ofliquorin the NCT ofDelhi andto notallowthesaleofliquortillthesituation prevalentinthecountryin the wake ofCovid-19,improves;and/or,(b)a directiontotherespondents to,while allowing sale ofliquor,ensure social distancmg norms of6feet between each customer and presence of only five persons at 2of[9] W.P.(C)3088/2020andotherconnected matters time atthe shops across the State ofNCT ofDelhi where alcohol is being sold; alternatively,(c) mandamus directing GNCTD to allow online sale and/orhomedeliveryofalcohol,to preventcrowdinginpurchasethereof.
2. At the outset,the senior standing counsel for the Union ofIndia has contended that W.P.(C)No.000474/2020 titled -Guruswamy Nataraj Vs. Union ofIndia''claiming the same reliefs, for across India,including for NCT ofDelhi, was dismissed by the Supreme Court ofIndia on 8"" May, 2020,leaving it open to the concerned state governments to consider nondirect sale including online sale/ home delivery ofliquor to facilitate social distancing.Itis argued thatthese petitions thus are not maintainable.
3. Neitherthe senior counsel nor counselfor any ofthe other petitioners save one, have pressed for the relief ofprohibition i.e. total ban ofsale of liquor in Delhi during the pandemic. The only counsel who sought a complete ban on sale ofalcohol in Delhi also has filed this petition merely on the basis ofnews reports ofcrowding at the liquor outlets; however on our enquiry from him,whether not there have been news reports also ofthe taxation revenue from the sale ofliquor forming an important component of the source ofrevenue of GNCTD and GNCTD being unable to perform its vital functions on such source ofrevenue being stopped, and what was his proposalfor substituting the said revenue,the said counsel also did not press for complete prohibition.
4. The senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3097/2020 has contended that the only solution to the problem of crowding at the liquor outlets is to permit online sale of liquor and for home delivery and a direction should be issued to the GNCTD to devise a methodology therefor. W.P.(C)3088/2020 and other connected matters page3of[9] He has informed that Zomato, till now engaged in home delivery offood from restaurants, hotels and eateries, has offered to also participate in the home delivery of alcohol. It is argued that since Zomato and other like entities have an established business model of home distribution, they are already equipped to commence home delivery ofliquor and the same will prevent the danger of spread of Covid-19 by those desiring to purchase alcohol coming in close contact with each other.
5. We have however inquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner, whether home delivery of alcohol can be equated with home delivery of food.From the news repoils ofconduct ofpatrons ofalcohol,on reopening ofliquor outlets after more than a month,it appears that home delivery of alcohol would be fraught with security and safety issues. The possibility of alcoholbeing snatched during transit cannot be ruled out.The possibility of home delivery of alcohol, distribution whereof till now is largely in the hands of State, would also increase the possibilities of adulteration of alcohol,also resulting in loss oflife. It appearsthattransitofalcoholfrom home to home would have to be in the same manner and style as transit of cash between banks and between banks and ATMs.
6 The senior counsel and other counselsforthe petitioners state thatin the scheme to be devised, precaution for all such appreheirsions can be inbuilt.
7. Thecounselforthepetitionerin W.P.(C)3090of2020statesthathe hasstudiedthesystemsofhomedeliveryofliquorprevalentinseveralother jurisdictions. He states that in home delivery ofliquor,it also has to be ensuredthattheliquorisnotdeliveredtothosebelowthedrinldngageof25 I 4 of[9] W.P.(C)3088/2020and otherconnected matters r years in Delhi. It is also argued that consumption of liquor is associated with high incidents of domestic violence and while delivering liquor at home,precaution therefor also has to be taken. He has made the following suggestions i. That deliveries should be against documents in proofofidentity and age and record thereof should be maintained by the person/agency delivering. ii. That the packaging in which liquor is delivered should prominently display helpline numbers for victims of domestic violence as well as the legal drinlcing age and warning that "drinldng ofalcohol is injurious to health". iii. That there should be a limit on the quantity of alcohol which can be delivered at home. iv. That it should also be ensured that the alcohol is not adulterated in transit inasmuch as loss of life by consumption of spurious liquor is a regular feature. v. That the possibility of delivery ofalcohol not only by existing liquor vendors but also by hotels and restaurants already licensed to seiwe alcohol should also be considered. It is informed that in several countries home delivery ofcocktails is in vogue. vi. That time of distribution and deliveiy of alcohol should be fixed keeping in view the security concerns and the possibility ofdomestic violence. vii. Record of all persons coming in contact with the deliveiy personnel should be maintained,to facilitate contact tiacing in the event ofneed.
8. The comrselfor DTTDC,also involvedin sale ofalcoholin Delhi, W.P.(CJ3088/2020andotherconnected matters ^of[9] h states that at present there are various restrictions in force and as a result whereofall the vends licensed to sell liquor are notopen. Itis also informed that some private vends and vends in malls and markets are not being permitted to be opened.
9. The counsel for the GNCTD states that all the vends could not be permitted to open because of restrictions already in force under the directions of the Central Government. It is stated that under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the State Governments though are entitled to provide for more stringent measures than those prescribed by the Central Govenunent,but are not entitled to relax any ofthe measures directed by the Central Government.
10. Else the counsel for the GNCTD as well as the counsel for the Union of India state that they are looking into the matter of online sale of liquor and would be taking a decision with respect thereto. It is stated that the Rules framed under the Excise Acts in force at this moment do not permit such online sale ofliquor.
11. We are afraid that any delay on the part of the Central Government and the GNCTD can exacerbate the problem of crowding outside liquor shops and would defeatthe purpose,inasmuch as more the delay,more will be the number ofpersons outside liquor shops,each day,who will come in close contact with each other,increasing the probability ofspread ofCovid-
19. Moreover,it is not as ifthe problem is of a pennanent nature, solution whereof can be devised at leisure; the problem is perhaps of a tbw days more inasmuch as once the patrons ofalcohol are satisfied that there would be no further closure, the crowding outside liquor shops is likely to W.P.(C)3088/2020 and other connected matters page6of[9] disappear.
12. We have however, enquired from the counsels for Central Government and GNCTD,why all the liquor vends already existing in the city cannot be opened up and which will automatically reduce crowding outside the limited number ofshops which are open atpresent.
13. The Counsels state thatthey willlook into the said aspect.
14. The coimsel for the GNCTD has also read out to us the various instiLictions which have already been issued to the liquor vendors which have been opened, to ensure social distancing. It is also informed that separate queues for those approaching to purchase liquor along with the etokens and those approaching without e-tokens have been directed to be maintained. On enquiry, why sale only against e-tokens cannot be directed, it is stated that all purchasers may not have access to internet. The possibility ofpermitting opening up ofcyber cafes across Delhi wherefrom e-tokens can be applied,has also been discussed.
15. We however are of the opinion that the instructions as have been read out to us,are without regard to the location and position ofthe liquor vends. It appears to us that considering the location and position of most of the liquor vends in the city,it is not possible to maintain social distancing as has been prescribed and the instructions stated to have been issued will not serve any purpose and will remain on paper only. Most ofthe liquor vends open on and have delivery counter facing the road and do not permit entiy ofany person therein except the staff deployed for selling. The roads on which the vends are situated also do not permit of any prescribed social distancing to be maintained. W.P.(C)3088/2020 and other connected matters page 7of[9]
16. We also learn that the online issuance of e-tokens for purchase of liquor has not met with much success owing to the token holder thereofstill being required to spend considerable time at the shop and which leads to crowding. We have inquired, whether at'the time of applying for e-token, the patron is able to make a choice of brand of alcohol desired to be purchased, to know the availability thereof and to make payment thereof. We are ofthe opinion that for e-tokens to effectively reduce the time spent at the liquor vends,these factors are essential.
17. The counsel for the GNCTD states that he has no instructions on this aspect and if these factors have not been considered, ensures consideration thereofin the decision making.
18. The possibility of deployment ofsufficient number ofpolice personnel outside each liquor vend has also been discussed butit is feltthatthe same is not a solution to the problem.
19. Though we also do not intend to issue any directions as sought in these petitions,inasmuch as the Courts are not equipped to decide such like matters and which are in the exclusive domain ofthe Executive but have heard the counsels and recorded what has transpired in the hearing, as it is felt that the GNCTD and the Central Government,which are informed to be at the stage oftaking a decision,take such decision with inputs from what has transpired during the hearing and to accept such of the suggestions which may befound to be workable.
20. The petitions are therefore disposed ot, though without granting reliefs claimed butbeseechingthe GNCTD and the Central Governmentto W.P.(C)3088/2020andotherconnected matters P'^S^^ take a decision after considering the suggestions made during the hearing, but at the earliest so that more damage than has already been done is not caused and so thatthe decision taken,servesthe need ofthe hour.