Excise policy under judicial scanner

Chandigarh, July 18

Haryana Excise Policy 2024-25 has come under judicial scanner with the Punjab and Haryana High Court issuing notice of motion to the state of Haryana on a petition challenging a clause prohibiting bars and pubs in all other districts, expect Gurugram and Faridabad, from operating beyond midnight.

The petitioner contended the clause was “manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and wholly violative of the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.

In its petition placed before a bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Jagmohan Bansal, DA Bodega Hospitality and other petitioners sought directions to the state of Haryana and other respondents to permit them to operate bar and pubs on a par with those in Gurugram and Faridabad in the “interest of justice, equity, and fair play”.

Appearing before the bench on the petitioner’s behalf, senior advocate Anand Chhibbar contended that they were running hospitality business after spending “crores of rupees” in opening the bars and pubs in Panchkula.

Chhibbar submitted the respondents came up with the Excise Policy of 2024-25 with amendments and alterations under which the petitioners applied for a renewal of their license to run bars in Panchkula.

But the “respondents arbitrarily and by misusing the powers with them have amended rule 9.8.8 in the Excise Policy of 2024-25 restricting the timings to open the bars/ pubs in 20 districts of the state of Haryana, which includes Panchkula, till 12 am (midnight) and in order to benefit a chosen few have arbitrarily excluded the two districts i.e. Gurugram and Faridabad from such restrictions,” he added.

The petition filed through advocates Arjun Chhibbar, Shikhar Sarin, Shreya B Sarin, Vaibhav Sahni and Manu Loona will now come up for resumed hearing on August 8.

ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY

• A clause in the new excise policy prohibits bars and pubs in all other Haryana districts, expect Gurugram and Faridabad, from operating beyond midnight.
• The petitioner contended the clause was “manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and violates the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution”.