Telangana High Court's Strong Stance Against Liquor Shop Expansion
The Telangana High Court has delivered a powerful message regarding the alarming proliferation of liquor establishments across the state, with Justice B Vijaysen Reddy making a striking observation that Telangana might require a "new name" if the current trend of opening wine shops continues unchecked.
Court Proceedings and Petition Details
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy made these significant remarks on Tuesday while presiding over a petition that challenged the establishment of a wine shop in a residential colony located in Medchal Malkajgiri district. The case involved Sri Satyanarayana Colony Welfare Association filing a petition against licence holder S Pavan Reddy, alleging illegal construction of temporary structures for operating a wine shop within their residential area.
The welfare association presented compelling arguments before the court, emphasizing that the area is predominantly residential where wine shops are strictly prohibited according to existing regulations. They further alleged that Nagaram municipal authorities had failed to take action despite multiple complaints about the unauthorized construction activities.
Judicial Observations and Government Policy
During the hearing, Justice Reddy expressed deep concern about the rapid expansion of liquor outlets throughout Telangana. "If opening liquor shops and restaurants in the state continues at the existing pace, we should give a new name to our Telangana," the judge remarked, highlighting the seriousness of the issue.
While acknowledging the judiciary's limited role in policy matters, Justice Reddy affirmed that courts would exercise whatever authority they possess to benefit society. He indicated that until the state government formulates a clear policy regarding liquor shop establishments, the court might need to issue directions to regulate the display and visibility of such establishments.
Legal Proceedings and Future Directions
The court has directed both the Prohibition and Excise Department and the Nagaram municipality to file counter-affidavits in response to the petition. Notices have also been issued to all private parties involved in the case.
According to the petition details, the welfare association sought directions for the excise department to cancel the liquor licence, arguing that none of the candidates who secured liquor licences in the municipality had identified suitable premises for their shops as required by regulations.
The matter has been adjourned for subsequent hearing, with the court maintaining its vigilant stance on ensuring proper implementation of rules governing liquor shop establishments in residential areas.
