Kerala high court allows serving of alcohol at private functions within precincts of house

Admittedly there will be no sale in a family function. Nor does the host's serving liquor to guests amount to a gift and, by legal fiction, a sale. Recalling the principle of reductio ad absurdum, if we take the Government's argument to its logical end, then the consequence is this: if you offer a glass of wine costing, say, Rs. 100, to your guest one evening, you must apply and obtain a licence by paying Rs. 50,000/- that is what the fee prescribed for obtaining an FL-6 licence.

28. We will address the issue on merits, too. The FL-6 license, the Government contends, is a special license issued not for the purpose of sale of liquor but for serving the same on special occasions. If we comprehensively view Rule 13, it provides for, to exemplify, Hotel (Restaurant) Licence, Club Licence, Airport Transit Lounge Licence. Of course, the licence under sub-rule (6) is a residuary licence: “when the circumstances do not allow the issue of licences of any of the above descriptions.” Inescapably, in all those licences a commercial element is conspicuous.

29. Any provision of law, as the basic interpretative tenets indicate, needs to be read and interpreted holistically. Truncated reading leads to unintended consequences. So we regret our inability to uphold the Government's contention that sub-rule (6) controls the liquor serving, rather than its selling. As has been pointed out by Alex's Counsel, there may have been any number of occasions when people or an establishment needs a licence for a limited period: on 1st January of a year, for example. The rest of the year a restaurant which is otherwise eligible for liquor licence may not see much business prospect. It is plausible, and in no way certain, to reckon such a situation exemplifying the use of FL-6 Licence.

30. The Government's further concern seems to be that if unlicenced consumption of liquor is permitted, it will create social problems. Perhaps fear is the best deterrent—but not for judicial adjudication. It further maintains that people will sell liquor in their houses in the name of their serving liquor to friends, relatives, and invitees. This will make each and every house a bar in the state. An unpalatable allegation but, at the same time, a legally sustainable one. Leaving aside the ethical aspect of all the people in the State vying with one another to convert their houses—happy homes—into bars serving liquor on the sly, we may observe that the Government is not remedyless.

31. First, we observe that the potential for abuse of a provision of law cannot be an interpretative index to vilify, or even to understand, or even to vilify, that provision of law. If a plain reading of a provision paves way for potential abuse of that provision, the remedy lies elsewhere: Legislative. Court cannot lose its fealty to plain meaning guided by a doomsday dogma.

32. Second, the Government has already imposed strict limitations on the quantity a person can possess. It has also defined what is a public place. If any person violates either of these norms, in the name of serving his guests in his “house” the Government, we reiterate, is not powerless. It can always act—in accordance with law, however.

Conclusion:

33. We hold that a private function in the precints of a person's house does not fall within the mischief of Rule 13(6) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. But, even to those private family-functions, the other regulations, for example, concerning quantity, and the identity of place will apply.

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(Before Antony Dominic and Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ.)

Alex V. Chacko, v. The Director General of Police (Law & Order) 

WPC No. 17383 of 2017

Decided on June 23, 2017.
Citation:2017 SCCONLINE Ker7448

Print Page

Whether right of a person to construct residential houses can be taken away?

The law in this behalf is explicit. Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there exists a clear provision the same cannot be taken away. It is also a trite law that the building plans are required to be dealt with in terms of the existing law. Determination of such a question cannot be postponed far less taken away. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in a case of this nature would have a role to play.

Rights of parties cannot be intermeddled so long as an appropriate amendment in legislation is not brought into force - Right of a person to construct residential houses in residential area is a valuable right and unless there exists a clear provision the same can not be taken away 

A statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable time

Supreme Court of India

T. Vijayalakshmi & Ors vs Town Planning Member & Anr on 19 October, 2006

Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari

          
Citation;(2006)8 SCC502,AIR2007SC25,

Print Page

When woman should not be denied right of residence in house owned by her mother-in-law?

  If, as a matter of fact, a girl is brought to the house

by the bridegroom on his own without the junction of his

parents, of course, the girl cannot forward a claim on such a

house belonging to the father-in-law or the mother-in-law as

the shared household. In this particular case, the husband

of the woman is no where in the picture. He has virtually

abandoned the girl and has gone abroad. It seems that his

parents are hand in gloves with him and they want to see


that the girl is thrown to the street. The marriage of the girl

was an arranged marriage, and she was brought not to the

street after marriage, whereas she was brought to the house

in question. Party respondents have no case that her

husband has another house of his own wherein they were

living together. Had she been made aware before the

marriage that she would not be permitted to reside in that

house and she would not be permitted to treat that house as

shared household, she would not have agreed for such a

marriage. In such a case, no sensible parents of a girl will

give their daughter in marriage to such a person. Therefore,

having accepted the girl as their daughter-in-law and

permitted to be taken to that house for her stay there, they

cannot be permitted to show the doors to her, on a mere

claim that the house belongs to the mother-in-law.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT:

                    MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

               TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
                                 OP(Crl.).No. 23 of 2015 (Q)
                                  

        SHIMA, V   NAVAS
           

Print Page