JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C.J.—Every other day the All India Radio quotes the Fathe of the Nation that liquor is poison. It keeps on describing its evils. No oner doubts it. Over the ages all civilizations have unequivocally condemned it. It has broken homes and ruined nations. In this country the evil percolated to the poorest in this century before Independence, Mahatma Gandhi said : "I hold drink to be more damnable than thieving and perhaps even prostitution. Is it not often the parent to both ? I ask you to join the country in sweeping out of existence the drink revenue and abolishing the liquor shops." In deference to these sentiments the framers of our Constitution have tried to root out this evil by enjoining upon the State to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks’ This provision has been made in Article 47 of the Constitution in the chapter containing the Directive Principles of the State policy. 2. Sometimes one hears responsible persons of the executive blaming the judiciary for being an obstacle to the enforcement of the Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution but never have they realised that how the State has consistently gone against the principle of bringing about prohibition. Year after year the number of vends is enlarged, the supply of liquor is increased and earlier sensible restrictions removed. Under various pretexts public morality, public health, and public interest are thrown to winds. It is a sad commentary on the States efforts to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health—one of its primary duties as laid down in Article 47, The liquor barons are succeeding in winning over some influential politicians, whose only principle is no-principle, with the result that the excise rules are observed in breach only by ensuring that the excise officials are paralysed . 3. Every year the vends are auctioned. The Excise and Taxation department of the State publishes the Announcements of the auction well in advance. It is on the basis of the conditions contained in these Announcements that the vends are auctioned. For the year 1982-83 the conditions, amongst others, were : "77. 3. Every year the vends are auctioned. The Excise and Taxation department of the State publishes the Announcements of the auction well in advance. It is on the basis of the conditions contained in these Announcements that the vends are auctioned. For the year 1982-83 the conditions, amongst others, were : "77. All licensed premises of Country Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Country Fermented Liquor shall be located at a distance of 200 yards from the places of worship, Educational Institution, Hospitals, Defined Labour and Harijan Colonies, Development Industrial and Irrigation projects. If for exceptional reasons it is not found feasible to adhere to the distance of 200 yards, a certificate should be obtained in the case of Educational Institutions both from the Deputy Commissioner and the District Education Officer and in other cases from the Deputy Commissioner. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner/Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the zone may within his discretion, order the shifting of any liquor shop from the existing places to reasonably distant place (s) in the locality and/or revenue estate and in such cases the liquor licensees shall be bound to arrange for shifting the liquor vend(s) within a period as may be fixed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner or the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the zone. No claim for compensation on this account will be entertained in any case. Failure to comply with such orders will render the licensee liable for cancellation of the licence and its re-auction at this risk. 78. The liquor vends situated on the National Highways may be shifted away from the National Highways. However, the vends shall not in any way be conspicuous from the National Highways in any case." These conditions were in force not only for the year 1982-83, but, we are informed for the previous two years also. However, no one ever bothered to comply with these provisions. Vends were run within a shouting distance of educational institutions and places of worship. Some decided to challenge this state of affairs. A Division Bench of this Court directed all those vends which did not comply with these provisions to be closed forthwith [The Citizens of Simla v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, ILR 1983 HP 5]. Vends were run within a shouting distance of educational institutions and places of worship. Some decided to challenge this state of affairs. A Division Bench of this Court directed all those vends which did not comply with these provisions to be closed forthwith [The Citizens of Simla v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, ILR 1983 HP 5]. It may be noticed that the State as well as other respondents in that case admitted that the vends were being run at places in contravention of the above provisions. In order to nullify the judgment, the State brought an ordinance, u is Ordinance No. 1 of 1983 which was promulgated with immediate effect on 12th March, 1982. The purport of this Ordinance was to delete conditions Nos. 77 and 78 till 31st March, 1983. Some of the respondents approached the Supreme Court and asked for Special Leave to Appeal. [Satya Pal and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, ILR 1983 HP 1 (SC)], By that time the Ordinance having come into force, the Supreme Court by a short order disposed of the case. This order reads : "Heard counsel. Special Leave granted. In view of the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 1 of 1983 which has been passed by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh, we set aside the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated January 14, 1983 in Writ Petition No, 321 of 1982 and allow this appeal. The appeal will stand disposed of in terms of this order. There will be no order as to costs." Now, for the year 1983-84 the aforementioned conditions No. 77 was drastically watered down while condition No. 78 was given a good by. In the Announcements for the Excise Auction for the year 1983-84 it has been re-numbered as 79, It reads : "All licensed premises of Country Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Country Fermented Liquor may be located at a reasonable distance from the places of worship by public at large and Educational Institutions to the satisfaction of Licence Granting Authority. In the Announcements for the Excise Auction for the year 1983-84 it has been re-numbered as 79, It reads : "All licensed premises of Country Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Country Fermented Liquor may be located at a reasonable distance from the places of worship by public at large and Educational Institutions to the satisfaction of Licence Granting Authority. In case of any complaints/objections regarding reasonability of such distance the decision of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner shall be final and it will be his discretion to order the shifting of any liquor shop from the existing place(s) to reasonably distant place in the locality or revenue estate and in such cases the liquor licensees shall be bound to arrange for the shifting of the liquor vend(s) within a period as may be fixed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner or Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the Zone. No claim of compensation of this account will be entertained. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner/Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the Zone should get themselves satisfied about the reasonability of the distance of liquor vend(s) from the places of worship by public at large and Educational Institutions. However, the liquor vends on National Highways may be located where suitable sites are available. Failure to comply with such orders will render the licence liable for cancellation and its re-auction at his sole responsibility." 4. However, the State continued its policy to encourage drinking by requiring the liquor bottles to have the following warning in Hindi and English printed on each label of the bottle. The warning is : "Aadhik Sharab Peena Zaihar Hai" "Excessive use of alcohol is deterious to health," (emphasis supplied) In other words, the consumers were ensured that liquor is not poisonous to health so long as it is not taken in excess. There could not be more subtle method of encouraging the drink. While swearing to promote Prohibition, the consumers are encouraged to drink. Since the liquor trade is permitted to augment the revenues of the State, effort of everyone concerned is to book as many persons as possible to the evil of drink. 5. When the new financial year started on 1st April, 1983, the vends wereopened practically in all the old places. Evidently the change was only to ensure that the liquor barons were not affected irrespective of the feelings of the community. 5. When the new financial year started on 1st April, 1983, the vends wereopened practically in all the old places. Evidently the change was only to ensure that the liquor barons were not affected irrespective of the feelings of the community. This time the Himachal Pradesh Nashabandi Parishad and some persons interested in ensuring public morality and public health decided to challenge this state of affairs. They have filed Civil Writ Petition No. 136 of 1983. Some Muslims have come forward to challenge the existence of a vend near Kashmiri jama Viasjid. They have filed Civil Writ Petition No. 179 of 1983. .Notices were issued to all the respondents. Since our decision might have affected other licensees whose vends were situated quite near educational institutions or places of worship, we called upon the State to give us a list of such vends so that we could issue notices to such licensees to afford them an opportunity of being heard. The State has filed Annexure R-8 showing the distances of vends from such places. We find that there are vends which are only 10 yards away from schools and there are vends which are hardly 20 yards away from places of worship. Notices have been issued to all such licensees, 6. The State has informed us that after the filing of this writ petition certain decisions were taken and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner was directed to look into the question whether these vends were within a reasonable distances. Guidelines have also been issued. Some action in some cases is stated to have been taken. The guidelines are Annexure R-4 and are dated 5th July, 1983. The subject is : "Guidelines to the field staff with regard to the implications of reasonable distance for retail sale of "Liquor Vends. We may reproduce the relevant portions : "L-14 vends are vends for retail sale of country liquor. The vends are allowed to sell the country liquor in the bottles as well as in pegs. In these vends drinking on the premises is also allowed. There is a possibility, therefore, that some persons may get drunk in these vends and create unnecessary noise, disturbance and nuisance. These vends, therefore, should be located at an adequate distance from the places of religious worship so that the noise from the vends does not disturb the persons offering prayers in the religious institutions. There is a possibility, therefore, that some persons may get drunk in these vends and create unnecessary noise, disturbance and nuisance. These vends, therefore, should be located at an adequate distance from the places of religious worship so that the noise from the vends does not disturb the persons offering prayers in the religious institutions. Similarly, the distance from the Schools should be adequate to ensure that the noise from the shops does not distu the students studying in the classes. “Even where the distance from the vends to the places of worship or educational institutions is adequate enough to prevent the noise from the vends entering in these institutions, the vends should not be located just at the gate of a religious institution or a school to avoid hurting the sensibility of the local population. “L-2 vends are vends making retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor and foreign liquor in bottles only. No sale of pegs is allowed and no drinking on the premises is allowed. Therefore the question of any one drinking on the premises and consequently getting drunk does not arise. These vends can, therefore, be located closer to the religious or educational institutions. However, they should not be located just at the gate of these institutions to avoid hurting sensibility of the local population. It must also be ensured that no display of liquor is allowed in the show windows of the vends," (emphasis supplied). 7. It is contended that the judgment of this court in the case of the Citizens of Simla has since been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal supra). We have already reproduced the judgment in full. It is evident that the Supreme Court set aside the judgment in view of the provisions contained in the Ordinance. In other words, the effect of this judgment was declared to be nullified by the said Ordinance, It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the decision given by the High Court was overruled. 8. The main question which falls for decision is as to what is meant by words "reasonable distance used in condition No. 97 which we have already reproduced in full. 8. The main question which falls for decision is as to what is meant by words "reasonable distance used in condition No. 97 which we have already reproduced in full. It may be repeated with advantage that for the years 1977-78 to 1982-83 the conditions of auction were that the vend should be situated at a distance of 200 yards from, amongst others, educational institutions, places of worship, labour hostels and Harijan colonies. If it was not found feasible to adhere to the distance of 200 yards from an educational institution, a certificate was required to be obtained from the District Education Officer as well as from the Deputy Commissioner. If it was found that it was not feasible to adhere to the distance of 200 yards from other places, then a certificate was required from the Deputy Commissioner (see old condition No 77 already reproduced). In the case of the Citizens of Simla (supra) while considering clause 77 it was observed : "The purpose of clause 77 is obviously public welfare by keeping the vends away from the places mentioned therein. This clause imperative in its nature. The only exception, of course, is that with the certificates of the Deputy Commissioner and also of the District Education Officer in the case of vends which are within 200 yards from the educational institutions, and in other cases of the Deputy Commissioner, the vends can be run within 200 yards of such places. These certificates are neither mere formalities nor to be granted in routine. Exceptional reasons have to be given by these authorities while granting certificates keeping in view the public welfare. It may be noticed that what is required is no only the reasons but it is essential that these have to be exceptional also. Needless to say that these will be open to judicial review since these authorities, who are part and parcel of the State executive may not start doling out the certificates in furtherance of the policy of the State to raise the maximum revenue at all costs. The functions of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, under clause 22, and those of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the District Education Officer are entirely different. It is possible that even if the certificates are given under clause 77, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner may not approve of the premises. The functions of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, under clause 22, and those of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the District Education Officer are entirely different. It is possible that even if the certificates are given under clause 77, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner may not approve of the premises. Approval of a premises is one thing but the location of a premises is entirely a different matter. Clause 77 deals with the location of a premises whereas clause 22 deals with the approval of a premises." 9. It is thus obvious that for a period of practically five years the State considered the distance of 200 yards from the educational institutions and places of worship as a reasonable distance. We are informed that for a period often years between 1966 to 1976 the policy of the State was not to lay down any definite distance but required the vends to be at a reasonable distance from such places. The change of the policy of the State from reasonable distance to 200 yards distance showed that the State decided to say categorically what was meant by reasonable distance. This must have been found necessary in order to remote all doubts because interpretation of reasonable distance could vary from person to person. We are also informed that in the adjoining State of Haryana the vends are required to be at a distance of 200 yards from such places. In other words, in this part of the country a distance of 200 yards has been treated as a reasonable distance. 10. Mr. Chhabil Dass, learned counsel for some of the respondents, has drawn our attention to Corpus juris Secundum, Volume 7:3, page 634, where the word reasonable is defined. The relevant part of the definition may be noticed : "The word reasonable is a relative generic term difficult of adequate definition. While it has been said that it is an ordinary word in common use and familiar to the average person, in fact the dictionaries give a number of meanings for the word, and it has various shades of meaning, and the particular shade is to be determined according to the context and circumstances of each particular case. While it has been said that it is an ordinary word in common use and familiar to the average person, in fact the dictionaries give a number of meanings for the word, and it has various shades of meaning, and the particular shade is to be determined according to the context and circumstances of each particular case. * * * * "Reasonable" is further defined as meaning ordinary or usual; not^ immoderate or excessive ; not capricious, arbitrary, or confiscatory." The Concise Oxford Dictionary has been referred to for the word "reasonable" where the relevant meanings are given as : "In accordance with reason, not absurd ; within the limits of reason, not greatly less or more than might be expected ; inexpensive, not extortionate ; tolerable, fair." Mr. Arun Kumar Goel learned counsel for some of the respondents, contends that what is "reasonable" should be left to the decision of the authorities unless the decision is capricious and unreasonable. 11. We may straightaway point out that what is reasonable distance" cannot be left to the excise authorities. We will presently advert to their conduct which shows that they seem to be oblivious to all rules and regulations and their one point programme is to ensure continuous increase of revenues. At this stage it is suffice to say that it is for the courts to decide as to what is meant by "reasonable distance" and not to leave it to the whims of the authorities. We have already pointed out that some of the vends which have been approved by the excise officials are located only at a distance of 10 yards from schools and some are only 20 yards away from places of worship. 12. Keeping in view this States own recent policy to ensure that the vends are at a distance of 200 yards from educational institutions and places of worship, and also the fact that the abjoining State of Haryana follows the same policy, we hold that "reasonable distance" means about 200 yards. As already pointed out, the old clause 77 provided for the distance being less than 200 yards in exceptional circumstances on the certificates granted by responsible authorities. It shows that all along the policy remained the same. As already pointed out, the old clause 77 provided for the distance being less than 200 yards in exceptional circumstances on the certificates granted by responsible authorities. It shows that all along the policy remained the same. We cannot hold that by deleting the words 200 yards and substituting these with the words "reasonable distance" the vends can be practically at a shouting distance from the educational institutions and places of worship. The guidelines issued by the State, the relevant part of which we have already reproduced, make the position worse. There replace the words "reasonable distance" by other ambiguous words "adequate distance" in respect of L-14 vends. The test laid down is that the noise from the vends does not disturb persons in prayers or the students studying in classes. To us it looks ridiculous indeed. Perhaps no responsible person has applied his mind at all and an effort has been made to justify the location of existing vends. The ridiculousness of these guidelines is evident from the directions : "the vends should not be located just at the gate of a religious institution or a school to avoid hurting the sensibility of the local population." In other words, the vends could be located at the very gate of these institutions in terms of the present conditions of auction requiring them to be at a "reasonable distance". As regards L-2 vends, the guidelines are : "these vends can, therefore, be located closer to the religious or educational institutions," In other words, these could be just at the gates of these institutions. 13. The least we can say about the guidelines, which seem to depict the policy of the State, is that we are greatly distressed by this approach of the State. It appears that the authorities that be either do not know the existence of Article 47 of the Constitution of India or they are not at all bothered about it. 13. The least we can say about the guidelines, which seem to depict the policy of the State, is that we are greatly distressed by this approach of the State. It appears that the authorities that be either do not know the existence of Article 47 of the Constitution of India or they are not at all bothered about it. For the advantage of these persons we will like to reproduce the provisions of this Article which reads : "The State shall regard the raising of the leval of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medical purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health." 14. The Constitution of India has secured to all its citizens : "LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship". This right of liberty of faith and worship is not an illusory right, it is true that this is in the Preamble of the Constitution, but then the Preamble is the key to the whole Constitution. Articles 25 to 28 lay down the Fundamental rights to freedom of religion. Article 25 deals with freedom of conscience and fee profession, practice and propogation of religion. It lays down that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propogate religion subject to public order, morality and health and other provisions contained in this Part of the Constitution. It is not disputed before us that all religions prohibit drinking of intoxicants. To allow vends practically next to the places of worship, is nothing short of injuring tae religious feelings of all the citizens. It is not doubt true that some of the citizens do enjoy drinking. It is also true that some of the bureaucrats and some of the politicians indulge in drinking but then they are, fortunately still, a microscopic minority. The Directive Principles contained in Article 47 are to ensure that this minority does not keep on adding converts to their class. The principle of this minority is : "Work is the ruin of drinking classes." But Article 47 reminds us ; Drink is the ruin of working classes." 15. The Directive Principles contained in Article 47 are to ensure that this minority does not keep on adding converts to their class. The principle of this minority is : "Work is the ruin of drinking classes." But Article 47 reminds us ; Drink is the ruin of working classes." 15. In our view the liberty of thought can be achieved only if the citizens get the education in the early part of their lives in healthy surrounding. The easy availability of a thing has always been a temptation to use it. That is the reason that harmful drugs, which are useful as medicines, have not been made freely available. 16. A contention has been raised on behalf of the respondents that the vends are auctioned with respect to a particular street or a part of a street or a part of a ward or locality. It is also submitted that in the city of Simla the places of worship and educational institutions are so spread that leaving aside a few vends it may not be possible to run the vends. It is indeed an argument of despair. Are the places of worship and educational institutions to be taken away to distant places in order to ensure that the vends are run in the localities concerned ? Is it suggested shat the places of worship and educational institutions should not be allowed to be run within a reasonable distance of the vends ? Have the vends to be given primary importance ? Fortunately, we have not yet reached that stage of no return. We are no the moment concerned with the conditions which are prevailing in some of the Western countries where one can drink intoxicants as a matter of routine instead of water. We have to keep the conditions—social and economic—of this country in mind for interpreting the laws in order to advance the Directive Principes enshrined in the Constitution. The State has already given a go by to the condition prohibiting location of vends near Harijan colonies and labour hostels which was in the old clause 77, It was indeed a very healthy provision meant for saving the poor classes by keeping the vulnerable sections of the society away from drinking. It is very unfortunate indeed that this State decided to do away with the erstwhile conditions Nos. 77 and 78. It is very unfortunate indeed that this State decided to do away with the erstwhile conditions Nos. 77 and 78. The latter condition kept the vends away from the national highways and in any case ensured that they were not conspicuous. We will recommend to the Government to introduce these conditions and to enforce them in their letter and spirit. The State may lose a bit of its revenue but it is bound to earn invaluable gratitude of the public at large. 17. We may at this stage refer to a letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Department of Social Welfare), dated 21-2-19/6, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments about ; "Programme for reducing consumption of Alcoholic Beverages/ It opens thus : "I am directed to refer to the announcement made by the Government of India on 2nd October, 1975, with a view to reducing the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the country, keeping in view the Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in the Constitution. The Government of India have been receiving enquiries from State Governments and others. The matter has, therefore, been considered and I am to enclose a note incorporating the views of the Government of India." Then follows the particular aspects on which the attention of the State Governments is invited. One of them is : "Steps may be considered to secure the objective that liquor shops are not located near industrial, irrigation, development projects ; near educational institutions, religious places and colonies of labourers etc." A copy of the programme of prohibition has also been placed before us. Clause 3 relates to the location of liquor shops. It reads : "3,1. Location of liquor shops near industrial, irrigation and other development projects should be banned in order to keep away workers from drinking. The minimum distance should as far as possible be two Kms, in the case of large projects. In the case of heavily congested townships, the minimum distance may have to be lowered. Licences given to the excise shops near project areas should not be renewed for the next excise year. 3.2. There should be a minimum distance of 500 meters between a liquor shop and a highway. 3.3. Liquor shops should not be allowed in towns and villages near educational institutions, religious places and colonies of labourers and harijans. Licences given to the excise shops near project areas should not be renewed for the next excise year. 3.2. There should be a minimum distance of 500 meters between a liquor shop and a highway. 3.3. Liquor shops should not be allowed in towns and villages near educational institutions, religious places and colonies of labourers and harijans. The question as to what the minimum distance should be is left to the discretion of the Government; it should not as far as possible be less than 600 meters For this purpose, educational institutions should mean high schools, colleges, etc., and not primary schools." Clause 6 (2) reads : "Liquor shops should not be opened in any part of the country merely to earn more excise revenue." Clause 7 deals with restrictions on drivers of motor vehicles. It reads : "7.1. Existing restrictions on drivers of motor vehicles and pilots of aircrafts should be strictly enforced. Any infringement of the rules in force in this behalf should be punished with the cancellation of their licence for a sufficiently long period. 7.2. There should be a complete ban on purchase by or sale of drinks to drivers of automobiles." Clause 8 desires that the : "existing excise legislation should be tightened up with a view to punishing the guilty more effectively. So as to bring all the guilty persons to book, special mobile police squads may be organised wherever called for." We have not been informed by anyone if the policy has since been watered down. 18. The learned counsel have cited various decisions to illustrate the meaning of the word "reasonable". However, all of them are in respect of other laws or Article 19 of the Constitution. 19. In S. Raghbir Singh Sandhawalia v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, [AIR 1958 Punjab 250], a Division Bench of that Court had the occasion to consider the meaning of the expression "reasonable" in connection with the Income Tax Act, It was observed that the expression "reasonable" means rational according to the dictates of reason and not excessive, or immoderate. It was also observed ; "An act is reasonable when it is conformable or agreeable to reason having regard to the facts of the particular controversy." 20. P.N. Kaushal etc. etc. It was also observed ; "An act is reasonable when it is conformable or agreeable to reason having regard to the facts of the particular controversy." 20. P.N. Kaushal etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc., [AIR 1978 SC 1457] the liquor licence holders had challenged the validity of increasing the dry days as well as the vires of Section 59 (f) (v) of the Punjab Excise Act with reference to Article 19 (1) (g), Krishna Iyer, j., speaking for the Court observed : "To permit the tavern or liquor bar to transact business that tempting day is to abet the dealer who picks the pocket of the vulnerables and betray the Gandhian behest. And yet, while bringing in the Tuesday-Friday forbiddance of sales, the ban on sales on the seventh of every month was entirely deleted an ablique bonus to the liquor lobby, if we look at it sternly, an unwitting indiscretion, if we view it indulgently. The victims are the weeping wives and crying children of the workers. All power is a trust and its exercise by governments must be subject to social audit and Judas exposure. For whom do the constitutional bells toll ? this court asked in an earlier judgment relating to Scheduled Castes. We hope Punjab will rectify the error and hearten the poor in the spirit of Article 47 and not take away by the left hand what the right hand gives." It was further observed : "If it is coal or mica or cinema the test of reasonableness will be stricter, but if it is an intoxicant or a killer drug or a fire-arm the restrictions must be stern. When the public purpose is clear and the policing need is manifest from the nature of the business itself the guidelines are easy to find." In Smt. Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, [AIR 1978 SC 597], Bhagwati, J., while commenting on the test of "reasonableness" with reference to Article 16 of the Constitution, observed : "It must be "right and just and fair" and not arbitary, fanciful, or oppressive otherwise it would be no procedure at all and the requirements of Article 21 would not be satisfied." 21. In Narendra Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, [AIR 1960 SC : 30], while considering the question of "reasonableness of restriction" in terms of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution, it was observed : "In applying the test of reasonableness, the court has to consider the question in the background of the facts and circumstances under which the order was made taking into account the nature of the evil that was sought to be remedied by such law, the ratio of the harm caused to individual citizens by the proposed remedy, to the beneficial effect reasonably expected to result to the general public. It will also be necessary to consider in that connection whether the restraint caused by the law is more than was necessary in the interests of the general public." 22. In Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan and others, [AIR 1963 SC 1638], Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, and freedom to manage religious affairs, came to be considered. The following observations of Mukherjea, J., (in the case of Commissioner Hindu Religious Endoments, Madras, 1954 SCR 1005) were quoted with approval: "A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress." The following quotation of Venkatarama Aiyar, J., in 1958 SCR 895, was also quoted with approval : "that the matters of religion in Article 26 (b) include even practices which are regarded by the community as part of its religion," 23. It is, therefore, necessary that the feelings of religious communities are respected. As already stated, all the religions prohibit the drinking of intoxicants. And it is perhaps this reason why the Central Government as well as the State Governments have been consistently particular that the liquor vends should be away from all places of worship, 24. In the circumstances mentioned above we have no hesitation in holding that the words "reasonable distance" meant that the liquor vends should ordinarily be at a distance of about 200 yards from the places of worship and educational institutions unless there are very exceptional reasons, 25. In the circumstances mentioned above we have no hesitation in holding that the words "reasonable distance" meant that the liquor vends should ordinarily be at a distance of about 200 yards from the places of worship and educational institutions unless there are very exceptional reasons, 25. The learned counsel for the respondents have raised an objection about the maintainability of the present petition. It is contended that .though C.W.P. No. 179 of 1983 is maintainable, C.W.P. No, 136 of 1983 is not maintainable because the petitioners have no Iocus-standi. It may be noticed that in the latter petition netitioner No. 1 is Himachal Pradesh Nashabandi Parishad, a registered society, whereas petitioner No. 2 is its Secretary. Petitioner No. 3 is an Advocate of this court whereas petitioner No. 4 is a resident of Lower Bazar, Shimla. The question of locus-standi has since been finally settled by the Supreme Court in various pronouncements. 26. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and another, [1981 (Supp ) Supreme Court Cases 87], this question was exhaustively dealt with. Bhagwati, J., observed : "............it is essential to the maintenance of the rule of law that every organ of the State must act within the limits of its power and carry out the duty imposed upon it by the Constitution or the law. If the State or any public authority acts beyond the scope of its power and thereby causes a specific legal injury to a person or to a determinate class or group of persons, it would be a case H of private injury actionable in the manner discussed in the preceding paragraphs. So also if the duty is owed by the State or any public authority to a person or to a determinate class or group of persons, it would give rise to a corresponding right in such person or determinate class or group of persons and they would be entitled to maintain an action for judicial redress. But if no specific legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class or group of persons by the act or omission of the State or any public authority and the injury is caused only to public interest, the question arises as to who can maintain an action for vindicating the rule of law and setting aside the unlawful action or enforcing the performance of the public duty. If no one can maintain an action for redress of such public wrong or public injury, it would be disastrous for the rule of law, for it would be open to the State or a public authority to act with impunity beyond the scope of its power or in breach of a public duty owed by it. The courts cannot countenance such a situation where the observance of the law is left to the sweet will of the authority bound by it, without any redress if the law is contravened. The view has, therefore, been taken by the courts in many decisions that whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury.” (emphasis supplied) It was also observed : "It is for this reason that in public interest litigation—litigation undertaken for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, diffused rights and interests or vindicating public interest, any citizen who is acting bona fide and who has sufficient interest has to be accorded standing............The judge who has the correct social perspective and who is on the same wavelength as the Constitution will be able to decide, without any difficulty and in consonance with the constitutional objectives, whether a member of the public moving the court in a particular case has sufficient interest to initiate the action." 27. The same view was reiterated in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and others v. Union of India and others, [1962 (3) Supreme Court Cases. 28. A Division Bench of this Court in The Citizens of Simla v. State of H.P. and others,[ILK 1983 HP 5] held that the citizens of Simla had the locus-standi to maintain a writ petition under similar circumstances. 29. A Division Bench of this court in Yoginder Lal Sharma v. Municipal Corporation, Shimla and others, [C.W.P. No. 11 of 1983, decided on September 28, 1983], has again taken the same view. This contention, therefore, has no force and has to be rejected straightaway. Prohibition of advertising sale of liquor. 30. 29. A Division Bench of this court in Yoginder Lal Sharma v. Municipal Corporation, Shimla and others, [C.W.P. No. 11 of 1983, decided on September 28, 1983], has again taken the same view. This contention, therefore, has no force and has to be rejected straightaway. Prohibition of advertising sale of liquor. 30. The petitioners have made allegations that some of the vends exhibit liquor bottles and thus contravene the conditions of the licences. It is also alleged that the excise officials turn a blind eye to the violation of various conditions of the licences by the licensees. It was specifically pointed out that the vend run under the name and style of "English Wine Shop" at the Mail by some of the respondents is flagrantly violating these conditions with the connivance of the excise officials since one of the partners of this vend is no other than the President of the City Congress Committee, Shimla. 31. It may now be noticed that under clause 1 of the Announcements it was made clear that ail the liquor licences were to be granted subject to the provisions of Punjab Excise Act (No. 1 of 1974) as in force in Himachal Pradesh and the Rules made thereunder from time to-time. This clause further lays down that a licensee shall be himself responsible for fulfilling any other obligation under any other law not specifically mentioned in the conditions. Clause 22 of the Announcements of Auction for 1983-84 talks about the size of the board to be fixed outside the vend. It reads : "The name(s) of the liquor shop(s) with the name of the lessee(s) and the year for which pertaining shall be printed (or written) in Hindi or English or both on a board of the size 2 x 3 to be exhibited conspicuously above the licensed premises above the main door." Clause No. 23 reads : "The licensed vendor shall at no time advertise sale of liquor by its exhibition to public or by announcing it on loudspeakers or in any other manner. The display of liquor bottles or their containers in the outer and front show windows is also prohibited." Now, whereas clause 2? permits the name of the shop to be given outside the liquor vend, clause 23 prohibits the advertisement of sale of liquor. The display of liquor bottles or their containers in the outer and front show windows is also prohibited." Now, whereas clause 2? permits the name of the shop to be given outside the liquor vend, clause 23 prohibits the advertisement of sale of liquor. Of course, while prohibiting advertisement it specifically prohibits exhibition of liquor to public or announcing it on loudspeakers. However, by prohibiting the advertisement of sale of liquor in any other manner the name of a shop which may announce the fact that it is for the sale of liquor would have been prohibited. It is for that reason that clause 22 does four things. Firstly it requires the name of the liquor shop to be exhibited. Secondly it requires the names of the licensees to be shown. Thirdly, it lays down the language, i.e. Hindi and/or English. Fourthly, the size of the board- is fixed at 2x3. By fixing the size of the board the purport is to ensure that the sale of liquor is not advertised while the name of the liquor shop becomes known to all and sundry. We may here record that during the course of arguments some responsible excise officials, who were present in the Court, were very categorical in stating that the boards could be of bigger sizes and they need not be in terms of clause 22. However, neither the Advocate General nor the counsel for the respondents produced any rule or order to show that it was so. This illustrates how the responsible excise officials understand the import of the conditions imposed by them on the licensees. If they cannot understand their own conditions, it cannot, of course, be expected of them to enforce the same. 32. The display of the liquor bottles and their containers in outer and show windows is prohibited. This is in furtherance of the general policy to prohibit the advertisement of liquor. Now, the English Wine Shop had admittedly a very big board. At one time the words were displayed with the help of electric bulbs (photographs of the board have been placed on the record). This is in furtherance of the general policy to prohibit the advertisement of liquor. Now, the English Wine Shop had admittedly a very big board. At one time the words were displayed with the help of electric bulbs (photographs of the board have been placed on the record). We would at this stage reproduce the order which we had passed on 13th July, 1983 about the import of condition No. 23 since the shopkeepers removed the liquor bottles which were being displayed in the show window but the front of the shop was glazed in such a manner that the whole shop became visible from the road. Needless to say that anyone standing on the road can practically see all the liquor bottles in the shop. A photograph illustrates it vividly. The defence, as put up by Mr. Arun Kumar Goel, learned counsel for this vend, is that it does not violate condition No. 23 since nothing is displayed in the show window. It is in these circumstances that we had passed the following detailed order which speaks for itself: "The purport of aforementioned rule 23 is simple. It is that the public by looking at the liquor bottles is not tempted to buy. Now what the vendor has done is that though they have removed the bottles from the show window, the glazing of the show window and the door is such that one can see practically all the bottles which are stacked in the shop since the shop is not very much deep. Even Mr. Datta (an excise official) admitted that he could see the bottles right from the road. We may record that we have ourselves seen this state of affairs since we are in the habit of going at the Mall where practically most of the citizens are in the habit of walking. Now the question for determination is whether this condition No. 23 is being violated ? What is a show window ? It is a place in a shop where the goods are kept to be seen by the public and to attract the customers since the goods are not visible from the road. Now the question for determination is whether this condition No. 23 is being violated ? What is a show window ? It is a place in a shop where the goods are kept to be seen by the public and to attract the customers since the goods are not visible from the road. But if an ingenious shopkeeper glazes the whole front portion of a shop and stacks his goods in such a fasion that these are visible from the road, then we have no doubt the purpose of such a glazing is to display the goods to the public. It is not correct to say that this rule is attracted only when there is a show window in the shop. It has to be borne in mind that this rule prohibits advertising "sale of liquor by its exhibition to the public". In addition to this "the display of liquor bottles or their containers in the outer and front show windows is also prohibited." When the liquor bottles can easily be seen by everyone from the road, evidently the vendor is advertising sale of liquor by exhibiting it to the public. It is this mischief which is sought to be curbed by condition No. 23 and it is no excuse that by glazing the front portion of a shop in such a manner as to enable the public to see the liquor bottles in the shop one is not exhibiting the bottles. It is, therefore, evident to us that respondent No. 3 is committing a breach of aforementioned condition No. 23 in respect of English Wine Shop situated at the Mall. It is also evident to us that the State is not prepared to take any action, since he has not been challaned at any time in respect of breach of this condition. It may be because of some extraneous considerations the State is not willing to enforce this condition. In these circumstances, we deem it our duty to ensure that this breach is stopped straightway irrespective of the fact that the State refuses to take notice of this breach. We, therefore, direct that the respondent No. 3 shall forthwith take necessary steps to ensure that the bottles lying in the shop are not visible from outside the shop. The respondent No. 3 runs another vend. It is also run under the name and style of English Wine Shop. We, therefore, direct that the respondent No. 3 shall forthwith take necessary steps to ensure that the bottles lying in the shop are not visible from outside the shop. The respondent No. 3 runs another vend. It is also run under the name and style of English Wine Shop. This vend is situated in the Lower Bazar. Its photograph is Annexure P-7 as well as P-8. The photographs illustrate how an ingenious person thinks that he can circumvent the aforesaid condition No. 23 As is apparent from the photographs, there is no show window in the shop and the door is such that the whole shop is open for exhibition. This shop is tenanted by one Sohan Singh who got the tenancy from the Municipal Corporation. We are told that fronts of such shops are completely open and these do not have much of depth. It is for this reason that in the photographs the bottles stacked on the side as well as on the back of the shop are clearly visible. In our opinion, it also amounts to breach of the aforementioned condition No. 23. We, therefore, direct respondent No. 3 to take necessary steps forthwith to ensure that the bottles are not visible from the road to the public in this shop. Before parting with the case relating to this particular vend, we may record that huge sign-board seems to have been displayed on this shop. It is again a breach of the condition. Mr. A.K. Goel assures us that this board is no more there. However, we are constrained to record that the whole staff of the Directorate of Excise and Taxation Commissioner seems to be hand in glove with the liquor licensees in this city and that is the reason why the Inspectors and other officers are consistent in not performing their duties under the law." 33. How the excise officials ignore all the rules and regulations is evident from the following. Under clause 21 of the Announcements it is the duty of the licensees to make their arrangements for suitable vends and get them approved before starting the liquor shops. It reads thus : "21. The licensees shall have to make their own arrangements for procuring liquor and also for suitable vends (shops) to carry on their business in the localities for which particular licences are sanctioned. It reads thus : "21. The licensees shall have to make their own arrangements for procuring liquor and also for suitable vends (shops) to carry on their business in the localities for which particular licences are sanctioned. It will be obligatory on the part of the licensees to get the premises and the name of the salesmen approved along with their photographs, before starting the shops. The premises will be within a specific locality or Revenue Estate where the location is not further specified for which such licences are auctioned/sanctioned, but licensees cannot claim that the new premises should remain restricted within the area and premises in which the shops had been functioning previously. In case the licensee/bidder fails to arrange premises for the shops to the satisfaction of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-of the Zone, he shall be liable to pay the entire amount of bid money and any other loss of Government revenue, even if the business is not carried on.” The excise officials are following entirely a different policy. The vends are first opened and they start working. The licensees apply for the approval and after months the question of approval is decided. For example, L-14 vend at Slogra had not been approved till the State filed its return to the present petition. Similarly, L-14 vend in Boileauganj was opened and run without approval for months. We need not now refer to other instances also since it was admitted that most of the licensees start running their liquor shops soon after the auction and the vends are approved thereafter. 34. Respondent No. 3, M/s Pratap Singh and Co., is a wine contractor. He has successfully bid for various vends. He is represented by Mr. Arun Kumar Goel, Advocate. He has L-2 vends at the Mall Road, Lower Bazar and Cart Road in Shimla. L-2 vend on the Mall Road is being run under the name and style of "English Wine Shop". It is stated to be 193 yards from Church. It, therefore, can be said to be at a reasonable distance from the places of worship. However, we find that the particulars furnished by the State in Annexure R-8 in respect of the names of the licensees of the vends, the name of Shri R.L. Seth, who is a partner of M/s Pratap Singh and Company is missing. Mr. It, therefore, can be said to be at a reasonable distance from the places of worship. However, we find that the particulars furnished by the State in Annexure R-8 in respect of the names of the licensees of the vends, the name of Shri R.L. Seth, who is a partner of M/s Pratap Singh and Company is missing. Mr. Devinder Gupta, learned counsel for Shri R.L-Seth, (Respondent No. 6), admits that Shri R. L. Seth is a partner. Why his name has not found a place in the return is anyones guess. It may be recalled that he is President of the City Congress Committee for the last few years. It is also not denied that under the law the names of all the partners of the licensees have not only to be disclosed to the Excise and Taxation authorities but has also to be mentioned on the board which is required to be displayed under clause No. 22 of the auctions. The partnership deed (Annexure R6/A) has been placed on the record. In this partnership deed Shri R.L. Seth has entered into partnership under the name and stylo of M/s Lal Brothers. This partnership deed relates to the period 1st April, 1982 for running the shop under the name and style of "Genuin Wine Shop at the Mall. He is also a partner in L-2 vend at Boileauganj and L-10 at the Mall, Shimla. A similar partnership deed (Annexure R-6/B) has been entered for running the business with effect from 1st April, 1983, However, in this partnership deed instead of M/s Lal Brothers, Shri RX. Seth himself was the partner alongwith Shri Gopal, s/o Shri Durga Dass. For reasons unknown though the name of the latter has been mentioned by the Excise authorities in Annexure R-8, they have withheld the name of Shri R.L. Seth, It is not denied by the Excise authorities that no action has been taken till now against the partners for not disclosing the name of Shri R.L. Seth, in case his name was not already disclosed to the Excise authorities. The petitioners are, therefore, justified in saying that Shri Seths importance in politics has ensured that his name does not become public. 35. Another fact which may be noticed in respect of the "English Wine Shop" is that this shop consists of two parts. The petitioners are, therefore, justified in saying that Shri Seths importance in politics has ensured that his name does not become public. 35. Another fact which may be noticed in respect of the "English Wine Shop" is that this shop consists of two parts. In the front portion is stacked the liquor for sale whereas in the back a tailoring shop is run. The only approach to this tailoring shop is through the liquor shop It is very unfortunate that the Taxation authorities did not apply their mind before approving the shop or it may be that they had to close their eyes because of the influence of Shri R.L Seth, who is the tenant of the whole shop. 36. L-14 shop at Boileauganj has a notorious history. L-14 is the "retail vend of country spirit for consumption on and off the premises." In the present financial year it is admitted that to begin with it was opened at a place which is just across the road from the Municipal School. The shop was a new one. It is stated to have been shifted during the pendency of the present petition to another place nearby and it is stated that it is not visible from the main road. 37. Now, the Punjab Intoxicants license and Sale Orders, 1956, which is applicable in this State, lays down the procedure to be followed and matters to be ascertained before any licence is granted for the retail vend of liquor for consumption on the premises. This procedure is laid down in Orders 8 to 15. Order 8 requires the Collector of Excise and Taxation to ascertain the opinion of persons who reside or have property in the neighbourhood and are likely to be affected by the proposal when it is proposed to grant a licence for the retail vend of liquor for consumption on any premises which were not licensed in the preceding year. He is also required to post a notice of the proposal at or near the site proposed for the new licence and shall cause the proposal to be made known in the neighbourhood by the beat of drum (Order 9). He is also required to post a notice of the proposal at or near the site proposed for the new licence and shall cause the proposal to be made known in the neighbourhood by the beat of drum (Order 9). Where the proposed premises are in a municipal area, or notified area, or Gram Panchayat area, it is the duty of the Collector to lay a proposal in writing before the Committee of Municipality or notified area or Gram Panchayat (Order 10), He has also to ask for the opinion of the Superintendent of Police under Order 11. Under Order 15 he is required to look into the objections where these are filed within two months from the date of notice given under Orders 9 and 10. The inquiry is required to be made, if possible, on the spot If inquiry cannot be made at the spot, a formal proceeding has to be conducted for recording evidence after publishing a prescribed notice notifying the date and place of proceedings. A final report is to be submitted by the Collector to the Financial Commissioner for the orders of the State Government, Admittedly nothing has been done in this case. No notice was given to the residents of the locality, objections were not invited and in violation of all these provisions this shop has been allowed to be run in Boileauganj. It is flagrant breach of the statutory duty imposed on the Collector. We, therefore, direct this vend to be closed forthwith. It is clarified that a vend can be located at a proper place after complying with all the provisions of law. 38. L-2 vend at the Cart Road is only 89 yards away from the Gurdwara and the Sikh Kanya High School, An affidavit has been filed by one Giani Har Amar Singh who is a Special Granthi (Akhand Path) of Singh Sabha Gurdwara Bus Stand, Shimla. He is also an Organiser-cum-Jathedar, Circle Akali Jatha. He states that the liquor vends at various places, including one at Cart Road which is hardly at a distance of 45 yards from the Gurdwara are situated within a radius of about 50 yards from Gurdwara. He is also an Organiser-cum-Jathedar, Circle Akali Jatha. He states that the liquor vends at various places, including one at Cart Road which is hardly at a distance of 45 yards from the Gurdwara are situated within a radius of about 50 yards from Gurdwara. It is also stated that there is a regular nuisance of drunkards who come to the Gurdwara at Cart Road in a drunken state and also in the Dharamsala being run in the Gurdwara, We have already decided that the liquor vends should be about 200 yards away from places of worship and educational institutions as that is the reasonable distance. 39. The Lower Bazar vend is, according to Annexure R-8 filed by the State, 59 yards from Kashmiri Masjid. Mr. Inder Singh, who appear for the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 179 of 1983, disputes the distance. He states that it is less then 20 yards. The return filed by the Excise and Taxatioh.Com-missioner makes an interesting reading which shows the manner in which the decisions are taken. We will like to reproduce para 12 of the return. Iris in reply to para 12 of the writ petition stating that the petitioners are Muslims which prohibit the taking of liquor, and that one of the walls of the mosque m the lower Bazar is adjoining to liquor vend "which has resulted in direct inters ference in the religious affairs of the petitioners, apart from the fact that it has affected/affecting the economic and social lives of the petitioners". The reply reads: "Not admitted. The L-2 vend Lower Bazar located at a respectable distance from Kashmiri Masjid and is on the back side on the main entrance gate of the Masjid. The walking distance between the main gate of the Masjid and the vend premises is 40 yards. There is a separate road path bifurcating the main Lower Bazar road to the Masjid towards Subzi Mandi. The approaches to this vend premises and the Subzi Mandi are different. The worship place in the Masjid is still inside by about 40 feet from the main entrance gate of the Masjid. The location of the vend is such that there is a big gap leaving no room for communication or visibility of the vend from the Kashmiri Masjid............" 40. The worship place in the Masjid is still inside by about 40 feet from the main entrance gate of the Masjid. The location of the vend is such that there is a big gap leaving no room for communication or visibility of the vend from the Kashmiri Masjid............" 40. This indeed is a strange approach that 5if the place of worship is 40 feet away from the main entrance then the vend can be located near the Masjid. It is common knowledge that the actual place of worship in all places of worship of all religions, is situated quite at a distance from the main entrance. But does this mean that the liquor vends can be located near these places ? How we wish that the State does not play with the religious sentiments of various religions by allowing the liquor vends to be near such places. 41. Another argument advanced before us by Mr. Arun Kumar Goel is that since the liquor vend has been sanctioned for this locality, which is a very small one, there is no other suitable place in the locality for locating the vend. In our opinion that can be no ground for the location of a liquor vend near a place of worship. It is of course unfortunate that the authorities concerned do not pay a serious attention to all the relevant questions before deciding to have a liquor vend at such places. 42. We need not refer to various other vends which have been shown in Annexure R-8 to be very near the places of worship and or near the educational institutions because of our decision on the question of reasonable distance. We may at this stage also deal with another contention be the respondents. It is stated that wherever in Shimla town the premises has been provided by the Municipal Corporation under clause No. 24 of the Announcements, no objection can be raised in respect of the location of the shops. We cannot agree. We may at this stage also deal with another contention be the respondents. It is stated that wherever in Shimla town the premises has been provided by the Municipal Corporation under clause No. 24 of the Announcements, no objection can be raised in respect of the location of the shops. We cannot agree. We may reproduce this condition which reads : "The liquor shops in Simla town will have to be located in the premises which may be provided by the Municipal Corporation for the purposes subject to the approval of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Collector; of the Zone failing which the liquor licencees will make their own arrangements for housing the liquor shops in accordance with the provisions of these conditions. In case the premises/stalls are provided by the local bodies/Panchayat in other places, the liquor vends will have to be housed in name premises/stalls subject to the approval of the respective Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Collector). No compensation or any kind of relief for shifting such premises will be allowed to liquor licensees. The orders and directions of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Collector) of the Zone concerned will be binding on the liquor licensees. It will be obligatory on the licensees to get the premises approved in writing from the respective Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Collector) of the Zone concerned ." 43. It is obvious that after the premises have been provided by the Municipal Corporation they have still to be approved by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the Zone concerned. This approval has to be according to law. In case the premises are approved against the provisions of law, naturally the approval will be illegal and without any effect. 44. As a result of the above discussion, we direct the State and the Excise and Taxation authorities to ensure that liquor vends in the State are located at a distance of about 200 yards from the places of worship and educational institutions. We grant two months time for this purpose. L-14 liquor vend at Boileauganj shall be closed forthwith but it may be located at a new place according to law and in the light of this decision. 45. The result is that the petitions are allowed with costs. The State will pay the costs. We grant two months time for this purpose. L-14 liquor vend at Boileauganj shall be closed forthwith but it may be located at a new place according to law and in the light of this decision. 45. The result is that the petitions are allowed with costs. The State will pay the costs. Lawyers fee in each writ petition is assessed at Rs. 500/-. Petition allowed. -