ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No.1 to 6. 2. This Public Interest Litigation is filed by an Advocate, who is petitioner No.1 and a Journalist, who is petitioner No.2, seeking a direction to remove the liquor shops, “Deshi” and “English”, from Kukdur Road, State Highway No.9 near Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh and to quash an order dated 25.07.2021 passed by the Collector (Excise), District Kabirdham. 3. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the location of the liquor shops are within the prohibited distance from the State Highway and thus, had violated the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also pleaded at paragraph 8.3 that the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Pandariya, Saraswati Shishu Mandir Higher Secondary School, Pandariya, Post Metric Girls Hostel, Community Health Centre and Girls Middle School are situated within the vicinity of 250 metres, 100 metres, 200 metres, 400 metres and 300 metres, respectively. There is one Hanuman Temple in the Forest Colony, which is located at a distance of 300 metres; Ravidas Mandir and Shani Mandir and Parmeshwari Devi Bhawan are situated within the vicinity of 400 metres. Though the school authorities, ward members and local persons had submitted representation against opening of the liquor shops at Kukdur Road, the same was not considered favourably. 4. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition (PIL) No.59 of 2021, which, however, was allowed to be withdrawn by an order dated 22.09.2021 because of the subsequent developments with liberty to file afresh. 5. It is stated that Deshi and English liquor shops are situated 60 metres away from State Highway No.9 and they are running on rental buildings. It is stated in paragraph 8.8 that both liquor shops are situated at Kukdur Road. At paragraph 8.7 it is stated that by order dated 25.07.2021, they were allowed to be opened. 6. Perusal of the order dated 25.07.2021, goes to show that Deshi (Country) liquor shop, Pandariya was shifted to Kui Road, Nawapar, Ward No.13, Pandariya and English (Foreign) liquor shop, Pandariya was shifted to Kukdur Road, B.N. Fules, Pandariya. At paragraph 8.7 it is stated that by order dated 25.07.2021, they were allowed to be opened. 6. Perusal of the order dated 25.07.2021, goes to show that Deshi (Country) liquor shop, Pandariya was shifted to Kui Road, Nawapar, Ward No.13, Pandariya and English (Foreign) liquor shop, Pandariya was shifted to Kukdur Road, B.N. Fules, Pandariya. It will be appropriate to reproduce the order dated 25.07.2021: “ORDER No./AAB/theka/20211735A Kabirdham Dated 25/07/2021 Country liquor shop, Pandariya (First) is being operated in financial year 2021-22 in the building owned by Mr. Brij Vilas Soni and Foreign liquor shop, Pandariya (Second) is being operated in the Government building. Due to public opposition in the presently operated building, tender process is being issued for the new shop building, according to which the Sub committee has approved the new shop in the building/shop owned by Mr. Sandeep Sahu for the Country liquor shop, Pandariya (First) and a new shop in the building/shop owned by Mr. Suryakant Pandey for Foreign liquor shop, Pandariya (Second). According to the report of the Circle Officer, the new proposed site for Country liquor shop, Pandariya (First) and Foreign liquor shop, Pandariya (Second), is a non-objectionable place according to rule 1 of the General License rules. Thus, according to the Section 62 (2) (h)(k)and(l) and as per the provision given in the General License condition, No. 5, the transfer of site of the Country liquor shop, Pandariya (First) is approved for the newly proposed site at Kui Road Navapara Ward, No 13 Pandariya in the building of Sandeep Sahu and the transfer of site of the Foreign liquor shop, Pandariya (Second), is approved for the newly proposed site at Kukdur Road, B.N. Fuels near Pandariya in the building of Mr. Suryakant Pandey. This order will come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- Illegible Collector District Kabirdham (C.G.) Kabirdham Dated : 25.07.2021” 7. A reply-affidavit was filed by the State-respondents stating that in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu represented by Its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and Others v. K. Balu and Another, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 281 , the State Government had carried out amendment in the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 by way of insertion of sub-section (3) (a) of Section 17. It is stated that pursuant to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Another, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 133 , clarifying that the order dated 15.12.2016 passed in K. Balu (supra) would not prohibit licensed establishments within the municipal areas, the State Government had issued an order dated 11.11.2019 to consider running of liquor shops in the municipal areas after conducting factual inspection of the matter and subsequently, a proviso was added to Section 17(3)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 by means of Chhattisgarh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. Reliance is also placed on the notification dated 01.04.2015, restricting setting up of liquor shops within the limits of 50 metres from schools, hospitals and temples, etc. It is on the basis of the above, Deshi (Country) liquor shop and English (Foreign) liquor shop had been shifted to Kui Road, Nawapar, and Kukdur Road, B.N. Fules, Pandariya, respectively and both the liquor shops are located within the municipal area of Ward No.13, Pandariya, which was notified exercising the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 on 12.07.2019. It is further stated that Deshi (Country) liquor shop and English (Foreign) liquor shop are situated 557 metres and 842 metres, respectively from Saraswati Shishu Mandir school. 8. Copies of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others v. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Others, decided on 25.02.2008, judgment of Madras High Court in V. Ka. Velusamy v. The District Collector and Others, decided on 21.11.2014, judgment of Allahabad High Court in Bishop Johnson School and College and Another v. The Excise Commissioner, State of U.P. and Others, decided on 02.02.2010 and the judgment of Patna High Court in Basant Yadav and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others, decided on 31.03.2003 are enclosed with the petition. 9. Mr. Ruparel, during the course of the submissions, has drawn attention of the Court to the aforesaid judgments. 10. Mr. Ahluwalia submits that in view of the judgment rendered in Arrive Safe Society (supra), the liquor shops being within the municipal areas, there is no infraction of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also relevant statute, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. 10. Mr. Ahluwalia submits that in view of the judgment rendered in Arrive Safe Society (supra), the liquor shops being within the municipal areas, there is no infraction of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also relevant statute, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 12. In Manoj Kumar Dwivedi (supra), the Supreme Court did not approve the approach of the High Court in closing the shops without issuing notice to the affected parties. On consideration of the Rules in question, direction was issued, directing all the shop owners or sub-shop owners to close their shops on or before 31.03.2008, if they are within a radius of 100 metres or 300 feet (approx.) to a place of public resort, school, hospital, place of worship or factory or to the entrance to a bazar or a residential colony. 13. In V. Ka. Velusamy (supra), learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court has not approved location of a liquor shop by the side of a study centre, where liquor is not only sold but also served. 14. In Bishop Johnson School and College (supra), Rule 5(4) of the U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968, which provided that no shop or sub-shop shall be licensed within a distance of 50 metres in case of Municipal Corporations; within a distance of 75 metres in case of Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats; and within a distance of 100 metres in other areas from any place of public worship or school or hospital or residential colony was under consideration of Allahabad High Court. It was held that Rule 5(4) as amended by the notification dated 20.03.2008 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly, the same was struck down. 15. In Basant Yadav (supra), it was observed that there is an obligation on the State to regulate those who trade in intoxicants. 16. In K. Balu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed as follows : “27. For all these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that no licences for liquor shops should be allowed both on the national and state highways. 16. In K. Balu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed as follows : “27. For all these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that no licences for liquor shops should be allowed both on the national and state highways. Moreover, in order to ensure that this provision is not defeated by the adoption of subterfuge, it would be necessary to direct that no exception can be carved out for the grant of liquor licences in respect of those stretches of the national or state highways which pass through the limits of any municipality corporation, city, town or local authority. Necessary safeguards must be introduced to ensure that liquor vends are not visible or directly accessible from the highway within a stipulated distance of 500 metres form the outer edge of the highway, or from a service lane along the highway. 28. However, we have also duly borne in mind the practical difficulty which has been expressed on behalf of the licence holders (including those in the town of Mahe) and the states that there are licences which have been duly renewed and whose term is still to expire. The states apprehend that premature termination may lead to claims for refund of licence fee for the unexpired term, with large financial implications. Hence we would direct that current licences may continue for the existing term but not later than 01.04.2017. 29. The states apprehend that premature termination may lead to claims for refund of licence fee for the unexpired term, with large financial implications. Hence we would direct that current licences may continue for the existing term but not later than 01.04.2017. 29. We accordingly hereby direct and order as follows: 29.1 All states and union territories shall forthwith cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways; 29.2 The prohibition contained in Para 29.1 above shall extend to and include stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority; 29.3 The existing licences which have already been renewed prior to the date of this order shall continue until the term of the licence expires but no later than 01.04.2017; 29.4 All signage and advertisements of the availability of liquor shall be prohibited and existing ones removed forthwith both on national and state highways; 29.5 No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or state highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway. 29.6 All States and Union territories are mandated to strictly enforce the above directions. The Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police shall within one month chalk out a plan for enforcement in consultation with the state revenue and home departments. Responsibility shall be assigned inter alia to District Collectors and Superintendents of Police and other competent authorities. Compliance shall be strictly monitored by calling for fortnightly reports on action taken. 29.7 These directions issue under Article 142 of the Constitution.” 17. In Arrive Safe Society (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as follows : “7. The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15.12.2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in proximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We have considered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at rest any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs, before the Court.” 18. The order does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We have considered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at rest any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs, before the Court.” 18. After the judgment of K. Balu (supra) dated 15.10.2016, the State Government had carried out an amendment in Section 17 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and a new sub-section (3)(a) had been incorporated, which is as follows : “17. Licence required for sale of intoxicantx- x x x (3) Sale or supply of liquor.- (a) The sale of liquor shall be permitted only through licensed liquor vends, which shall not be located within 500 metres radial distance from the outer range of the National or State Highway or Service Lane along such highway and such liquor vends shall neither be directly, visible nor accessible from such National or State Highway.” 19. Later on, a proviso was added to Section 17(3)(a) by way of Chhattisgarh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020, which is as follows : “Provided that the above provisions shall not be applicable for those National / State Highways which pass within any municipal area.” 20. It is stated in the reply of the respondents that liquor shops are within municipal areas and therefore, there is no restriction for opening of liquor shop at the State Highway in view of decision in Arrive Safe Society (supra). It is also stated that location of the liquor shops does not violate the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as notification issued by the State Government. Though the reply-affidavit was filed long back on 20.12.2021, till the hearing of the petition on 12.08.2022, no rejoinder-affidavit was filed contesting the averments. 21. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in this application and, accordingly, same is dismissed. We, however, hasten to add that in absence of any challenge to the notification dated 01.04.2015, we have expressed no opinion with regard to the same. 22. No cost.