PANAJI
Bars and restaurants which serve liquor for consumption within premises would not come under the ambit of the Supreme Court’s order barring sale of liquor within 500 metres from State and national highways, State’s Advocate General S D Lotlikar has told the Chief Minister.
Speaking to The Goan, Lotlikar said that while he is yet to receive the State government’s written request for an opinion on the matter, he has spoken to the Chief Minister who is ‘seized with the matter’ and has told him that the order would apply only to sale of liquor to be consumed off premises.
“It is sale for consumption off premises that comes under the purview of the Supreme Court order. What is sold for consumption on the premises will not be affected. I have conveyed this to the chief minister,” Lotlikar told The Goan.
Asked whether the State government would take up the matter and file a review petition before the Supreme Court, Lotlikar said that the preferable option would be to lend weight and support a petition filed by the affected liquor traders rather than filing a petition themselves.
“It would be the responsibility of the government to either support a review petition which would be filed by the affected traders or to file a petition themselves since it has been an election promise of almost all parties,” he said.
Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar, too, confirmed the developments.
“[The] AG is of the opinion that restaurants in the State don’t come within the purview of the Supreme Court order. So there is no need to panic. Secondly he is of the opinion that the liquor and wine shop owners in the State should approach the SC and request that they should be made a party to the case, just like the stakeholders in Maharashtra have approached.
“Ethically, it is not right on part of the government to approach the Court. Let the business community approach and directly or indirectly wherever possible government will co-operate. Once they approach the court, while reviewing the case, the Court may even take the State into consideration,” Parsekar said.
He said that the State’s role could be limited to placing before the Supreme Court the statistics they have gathered over how many establishments would be affected and the loss of livelihoods on account of the order.
The Supreme Court has in its order used the word “shops” and “vends”
However, also on the mind of the State administration is that review petitions are only reluctantly agreed to by the Supreme Court and are heard on limited grounds. “In this case, the State could contend that they were not party in the matter and hence merited a review,” the AG said.
The State government is not an entity directly affected by the Supreme Court’s order and is only a loser of revenue. However, the liquor traders will be directly affected by the order and could claim to have not been heard.
