Court Orders Closure of Liquor Shop Near Kanpur School Following Petition by LKG Student

The Allahabad High Court ordered the state government not to renew the liquor license of a shop near a Kanpur school. The suit was filed by a five-year-old student concerned about the shop's proximity to the school, creating a disturbance and attracting antisocial elements. The court noted that the distance between the shop and school was 30 meters, violating a rule requiring a 50-meter distance from schools. The state government argued that the shop was established before the school, but the court ruled that this did not excuse the violation. The court restrained the authorities from renewing the license for the financial year 2025-26 onwards.

The Allahabad High Court has directed the state government to refrain from renewing the licence of a liquor shop located near a school in Kanpur after a five-year-old student of the school approached the court, seeking directions to relocate the store. In his PIL, Atharva Dixit said as the liquor shop remains open throughout the day and is a meeting point of ''anti-social elements'', it is creating disturbance to the students of the school.

The petitioner also sought directions to the state authorities to refrain from granting the country-made liquor shop in Azad Nagar in Kanpur a fresh or renewed licence for 2024-25, as, according to him, the distance between the liquor shop and his school is only 30 metres.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar restrained the state excise authorities from granting/renewing the licence of the shop in question after expiry of the present licence on March 31, 2025, i.e. for the financial year 2025-26 onwards.

In response to the PIL, the state government relied on the provisions of Rule 5(4)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968. The proviso to this rule stipulates a distance of 50 metres between a liquor shop and any place of worship, school, hospital, or residential colony. Further, if any such place comes into existence after the establishment of the shop, the provisions of this rule do not apply. Since the shop in question has been operational for over 30 years and the school was established in 2019, it was submitted that there is no violation of the rules.

However, the petitioner's counsel argued that if a school is established after the liquor shop, it should not result in the closure of the shop during the current financial year. However, once the licence in question expires, no fresh licence or renewal should be granted. Therefore, rejecting the petitioner's representation on these grounds is factually incorrect, the petitioner added.

The court in its decision dated May 2 said, ''The mere fact that the shop has been used as a liquor shop in a financial year prior to the school came into existence, is not sufficient for invoking the proviso for the purpose of granting licence year after year in as much as the licence is issued to the licensee on his fulfilling the eligibility under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002 and not to the shop in question.''

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)