Holding

The distance provision in Rule 45(1‑C) is mandatory and must be measured from the nearest entrance of the religious institution; since two entrances of the mosque are within 75 metres, the licence cannot be granted.

Summary

Vikram Shama Shetty applied for an FL‑III licence to sell foreign liquor from his restaurant located near a mosque. Rule 45(1‑C) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules bars licences for establishments within 75 metres of a religious institution. While an earlier appellate authority had allowed the licence based on an architect’s report, the police filed a revision and the State Government set aside the licence, holding the restaurant was within the prohibited distance. The High Court upheld the revision, emphasizing that the distance must be measured from the nearest entrance of the mosque, and two of the mosque’s three entrances were within 75 metres. The Supreme Court affirmed that the distance requirement is mandatory, rejected the appellant’s argument that the most‑used entrance should be considered, held that there was no violation of Article 14, and confirmed the revisional authority’s jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the licence denied.

Issues considered

The distance requirement under Rule 45(1‑C) is mandatory and how the distance from a religious institution must be measured.
Whether the revisional authority under Section 148 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1929 had jurisdiction to set aside the earlier licence order.
Whether denial of the licence violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the existence of licences granted to similarly situated establishments can be invoked as a defence (negative equality).

Legislation cited

Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953s. Rule 45(1‑C)

Subjects

Bombay Prohibition ActForeign Liquor Rulesdistance prohibitionlicencereligious institutionArticle 14revisional jurisdictionmandatory rulemeasurement of distancemosque

Judgment

I
A VIKRAMA SHAMA SHETTY
v.
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
..,
JULY 20, 2006

B [ARIJJT PASAYAT AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.]

Bombay Prohibition Act, 1929; Section 148/Bombay Foreign Liquor
Rules 1953; Rule 45(1-C):

c Application for grant of Licence/permit to sell foreign made liquor in
the vicinity of a mosque-Rejected by the authorities on ground of non-
fulfilment of requirement of distance prohibition-Allowed by Appellate
Authorities-Reversed by Revisional Authority-Challenge to-Allowt!d by
Single Judge-Affirmed by Division Bench of the High Court-On appeal,
D Held: Distance prohibition is mandatory in nature-Distance between two
out of three entrances to the mosque and the applicant's establishment is
within the permissible limit-However, the third entrance which has been
most commonly used lies within the prohibition limit-Hence, the Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court justified in holding that the
establishment of the applicant situated within the prohibitory distance.
E
Revisional jurisdiction-Exercise of-Held: Since power of revision
vested in the State Government, it cannot be said that such exercise by the
State was beyond its jurisdiction merely because it acted on the petition filed
by the police authorities.

F Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14:

Grant of licence by Authorities to establishments allegedly situated in
the prohibitory distance hut denied to the applicant-Discrimination---Held:
Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such a case
as it would amount to perpetuating another wrong.
G
The question which arose for determination before this Court was as to
whether the revisional authority under The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1929
was right in refusing to grant a licence to sell foreign liquor to the appellant

H
in its establishmer.t, a restaurant on the ground that the distance between
754
,
VIKRAMA SHAMA SHETTY v. STATE OFMAHARASHTRA 755
the establishment of the appellant is situated within the prohibitory distance A
from the mosque, and as such it violates the mandatory provisions of law in
terms of Rule 45(1-C) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules.

Appellant contended that the language of Rule 45(1-C) of the Bombay
Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 makes the position clear that in order to
ascertain prohibitory distance, reference could be made to the path by which B
pedestrian ordinarily reaches the religious institution; that since the two
entrances are not ordinarily used, the distance has to be reckoned from the
'third entrance gate' which is admittedly beyond the prohibitory limit; that
the mosque management had no objection to the functioning of the appellant's
restaurant; that other establishments similarly situated were also allowed to C
be functioning; and that since revision petition was filed by the police
authorities after long lapse of time, the same should not have been entertained.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD:l.1. The provisions of Rule 45(1-C) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor D
Rules make it clear that the distance requirement is mandatory in nature.
(759-El

1.2. From the Commission's report, it is clear that two entrances to the
mosque are within the mandatory distance. It may be that, as rightly noticed
by the Single Judge of the High Court, on a particular occasion one of the E
entrances may be closed. It bas also been noted that one of the entrances is
used as an exit. The stress is on the nearest distance and not the most used
distance. An attempt was made to show that the second entrance is most used
one. Though there was an earlier report, but the same was not accepted by
the High Court at some stage and, therefore, the Court Commissioner was
appointed. There is no challenge to the correctness of the Court F
Commissioner's report. That being so, the Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court were justified in their view that the restaurant in
question is situated within the prohibitory distance of 75 metres. (760-D-E-Fl

2. Even if it is accepted that there was any improper permission granted G
by the authorities earlier that may render such permissions vulnerable so
far as 32 vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of respondents.
It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make
one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in
another case; direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such >
matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment
on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into
service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is
existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a
wrong action to bring both wrongs on par. [760-G-H; 761-AI
B
Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr., [2003[ 5
sec 435, relied on.
3. Section 148 of the Act empowers State Government to call for and
examine records of any proceeding before any Prohibition Officer for the
c purpose of satisfying itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any order
passed in and as to the regularity of any such proceedings. The power of suo
moto revision is clearly vested in the State Government. If it acted on the
basis of petition filed by police authorities, it cannot be said that the exercise
was beyond its jurisdiction. [761-C-DI
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3059 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.2005 in Appeal Lodging No. 75/
2005 in W.P. 2736/2004 and dated 5.5.2005 in Rt:view Petition (L) No. 17105 in
Appeal Lodging No. 7512005 of the High Court of Bombay.
E
Uday U. Lalit, Rajiv Deokar and Shirin Khajuria for the Appellant.

A.P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary and V.N. Raghupathy for the
Respondent.

F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the lega ity of judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal Lodging No.75/2005 in
G Writ Petition No.2736/2004.

The question that arose for consideration in the writ petition and the
appeal therefrom is whether the revisional authority under The Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1929 (hereinafter refe:-red to a; the 'Act') was right in refusing
FL-III license to the appellant on the ground that the distance between the
~
H establishment of the appellant and the entrar ce to a mosque is less than 75
VIKRAMA SHAMA SH ETTY v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASAYAT, J.] 757
\. metres. Learned Single Judge held on the basis of the report given by the A
Court Commissioner that the distance was less than 75 metres and, therefore,
in view of what is provided in Rule 45(1-C) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor
Rules, 1953 (in short the 'Rules') the license could not have been granted.
The view was upheid by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment.

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: B

Appellant applied for obtaining license (permit) to enable him to sell
foreign made liquor since no objection certificate was obtained from the
mosque trust for grant of such license. The Commissioner of Police raised
objection to the grant of the license. The Collector of Bombay City, State
Excise Department rejected the application on the ground that there was a c
religious institution within the 60 metres from the restaurant. An appeal was
preferred under Section 137(2) of the Act to the Commissioner of Prohibition
and Excise. The appeal was allowed by order dated 26.3. I999 on the basis of
certificate issued by the Chartered Architect certifying that the distance
between mosque and the restaurant was 75.43 metres. On the basis of the D
directions given by the Appellate Authority license was granted on 1.4.1999.
After grant of license, appellant filed an application before the Collector for
' issuance of public entertainment license. The Commissioner of Police filed
revision before the Minister of State for Excise for revoking the order passed
by the Commissioner granting FL-Ill license. The revisional authority set
aside the order of the Commissioner and the order of the Collector rejecting E
the license was confirmed. A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court,
which was heard by a learned Single Judge. Basic issue raised related to the
distance, and the alleged grant of license to similarly situated persons whose
establishments were situated less than 75 metres. A Court Commissioner was
appointed to find out the factual details. On the basis of his report, learned F
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the distance of 75 metres
is mandatory as prescribed by rule 45(1-C) of the rules. From the report of the
Commissioner it is clear two entrances (first and third entrance) to the mosque
are within the mandatory distance of 75 metres. In the appeal filed before the
Division Bench stand was taken that the entrances are not frequently used
and, therefore, distance of second entrance only was to be taken into G
consideration for the purpose of measurement. It was pointed out that main
entrance to the mosque is from Narsi Natha Street, which is at a distance of
98.47 metres, i.e. more than 75 metres. The Division Bench concurred with the
findings of the learned Single Judge. Reference was made to the Commissioner's
.. report and certified photographs. H
758 SUPREME COURT REl'ORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A In support of the appeal Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel submitted
that the language of Rule 45(1-C) makes the P'>sition clear that reference is
made to the path by which pedestrian ordinarily ·eaches the religious institute.
Since the two entrances are not ordinarily used and are only sometimes used,
the distance has to be reckoned from the second entrance gate which is
B admittedly beyond 75 metres. It was further submitted that the mosque
management had no objection to the functioning of the appellant's restaurant.
In fact, they have given their consent. The High Court did not take note of
the fact that in some other cases establishments were functioning within the
limit of75 metres, and there is no reason to make a departure so far appellant
is concerned. The Commissioner's order is in e!,sence final. After long lapse
C of time revision petition was filed by the police authorities and the same
should not have been entertained.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State a: 1d its functionaries supported
the order.

D Rule 45(1-C) is the pivotal provision and it reads as follows:

"( 1-C) No licence under sub-rule (Ill) shall be granted in respect
of any hotel or restaurant which is situated within a distance of ,
seventy-five meters from any educational or religious institution or
from any bus stand, station or deport of the Maharashtra State Road
E Transport Corporation or from the boun< lary of any National or State
highway:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply in
respect of an existing hotel or restaurant for which a licence in Form
FL-III is held by the Manager or Propriet< 1r thereof immediately before
F coming into force of the Bombay Foreign Liquor (Amendment) Rules,
1990.

Explanation :- For the purposes of tiis sub-rule -

(i) "educational institution" means any pre-primary, primary, or
G secondary school managed or recognized by any local authority or
the State Government or the Central GJvernment and any college
affiliated to any University established t y law, but does not include
any private coaching institution;

(ii) "religious institution" means an institution for the promotion
i
H of any religion and includes a temple, math, mosque, church, >
VIKRAMASHAMASHEITYv. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASAYAT,J.] 759
. ·~
synagogue, agiary or other place of public religious worship which is A
managed or owned by a public trust registered under the Bombay
Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Born xx/x of 1950) and included such other
religious institutions as the State Government may by order specify
in this behalf;

(iii) The distance referred to in clause (a) of this sub-rule shall be B
measured from the mid-point of the entrance of the hotel or restaurant
along with the nearest path by which the pedestraian ordinarily
reaches,-
. ' (a) the mid point of nearest gate of the institution if there is a
compound wall and if there is no compound wall, the midpoint c
of the nearest entrance of the institution, or
(b) the mid-point. of the nearest gate of the bus stand, station or
depot of the depot of the Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation if there is a compound wall and if there is no
compound wall, the nearest point of the boundary of such bus D
stand, station or depot, or
~ (c) the boundary of the National or State highway".

A bare reading of the provisions makes the position clear that the
distance requirement is mandatory.
E
Initially in pursuance of an order dated 17th December 2003 passed by
a learned Single Judge of the High Court, joint measurements were taken and
the report of the joint measurement dated 19th December 2003 is that the
cjistance is less than 75 meters. Again when the matter was before the High
Court for admission, an order was passed on 3rd November, 2004, by a learned F
.. Single Judge by which the Prothonotary and Senior Master was directed to
appoint an Architect from the panel of Architects maintained by the Court to
carry out a measurement in terms of Rule 45(1-C). The Architect submitted his
report together with a plan before the High Court.

The report of the Architect shows that the Hotel belonging to the G
Petitioner abuts Abhaychand Gandhi Marg and the mosque is located across
the road at the junction of Abhaychand Gandhi Marg and Narsi Natha Street.
The mosque has three entrances out of which two are from a common
passage having access to Narsi Nath a Street. The third entrance is from
' Abhaychand Gandhi Marg.
#-.
H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A The Court Commissioner has reported that distance from the first '-
entrance to the mosque from Narsi Natha Stree1 upto the establishment of the
appellant is 68.45 meters. Though the door to the mosque was closed when
the Commissioner went for inspection, the re~ ort records that the door was
opened on the request of the Commissioner and it was found that it directly
B opened into the prayer hall of the mosque.

The second entrance to the mosque from Narsi Natha Street is at a
distance of98.47 meters. The third entrance to the mosque from Abhaychand
Gandhi Marg is at a distance of 60.06 meters. The report of the Commissioner
notes that this door is generally closed and is occasionally used as an exit. '
C The Commissioner has fm1her recorded that d11ring the course of inspection,
he was informed that generally people enter tlte mosque through the second
entrance.

From the report of the Commissioner appointed by the High Court it is
clear that two entrances to the mosque are wi1hin the.mandatory distance. It
D may be that, as rightly noticed by learned Single Judge, on a particular
occasion one of the entrances may be closed. :t has also been noted that one
of the entrances is used as an exit. The stress is on the nearest distance and
not the most used distance. An attempt was nade to show that the second ,
entrance is most used one. Though there was an earlier report, we find that
E the same was not accepted by the High Cour: at some stage and, therefore,
the Court Commissioner was appointed. There is no challenge to the
correctness of the Court Commissioner's rep' Jrt. That being so, the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench were ,ustified in their view that the
restaurant is situated within the prohibitory c.istance of 75 metres.

F Another plea which was emphasize( was the existence of some
restaurants to whom licences have been gra11ted.

"As highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants, even if it is
accepted that there was any improper permission, that may render such
permissions vulnerable so far as 32 vessels an: concerned. But it cannot come
G to the aid of respondents. It is not necessary 1o deal with that aspect because
two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something
wrong has been done in another case; direc .ion should be given for doing
another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating
another wrong. In such matters there is nc' discrimination involved. The
concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of
H India, I950 (in short 'the Constitution') cannct be pressed into service in such .~
VIK.RAMA SHAMA SHETIY v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASAYAT, J.] 76 J

cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of A
similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action
to bring both wrongs or par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that wrong
has been committed on some other cases by introducing a concept of negative
equality respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to estalbish
strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative
equality." (See Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr., B
(2003] 5 sec 435).

Stand that the revision was at the instance of police authorities is
-' clearly undisputed. Section 148 of the Act empowers State Government to call
for and examine records of any proceeding before any Prohibition Officer for C
the purpose of satisfying itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any
order passed in and as to the regularity of any such proceedings. The power
of suo moto revision is clearly vested in the State Government. If it acted on
the basis of petition filed by police authorities, it cannot be said that the
exercise was beyond jurisdiction.
D
Looked at from any angle the orders passed by learned Single Judge
and Division Bench do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

The appeal fails but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeal dismissed. E

•