# Samir Kumar Banerji & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 940
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-30
- **Case number:** P.I.L. No. 813 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/samir-kumar-banerji-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54832
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Rajiv Singh, S.C., Manoj Kumar Singh,
Siddhartha
Srivastava,
Vinod
Kumar
Pandey

Issue for consideration
Matter
pertains
to
seeking
direction
commanding the respondents to close/shift
liquor shops of the private respondents from the
present location/site which are within the
distance of the prohibited radius of 100 metres
as per U.P. Number and Location of Excise
Shops Rules, 1968 .

Headnotes
U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops
Rules, 1968-Rule 5- liquor shops in residential
area at a distance of nearly 50 to 60 metres-
from the entry roads of the residential colony
and an ancient Shiv temple- Rule 5(4) thereof
prohibits running/opening of liquor shops within
50 metres radius of a residential colony- the
scattered residential houses also termed as
'quarters', where commercial establishments
also exist, cannot be treated as 'residential
colony' as defined in Explanation (iv) of sub-rule
(4)(a) of Rule 5-Petition dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permanent disablement incurred as a result
of a motor accident, the claimant can seek,
apart from compensation for future loss of
income, amounts for future prospects as
well. We have come across many orders of
different tribunals and unfortunately
affirmed by different High Courts, taking
the view that the claimant is not entitled to
compensation for future prospects in
accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. That
is not a correct position of law. There is
no justification to exclude the possibility
of compensation for future prospects in
accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. Such
a narrow reading is illogical because it
denies altogether the possibility of the
living victim progressing further in life in
accident
cases
?
and
admits
such
possibility of future prospects, in case of
the victim's death.
 (emphasis supplied)
12. I have considered the above
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Anoop Maheshwari(supra) in which the
factual
situation
was
different.
The
claimant was running a business and since
the High Court had already awarded just
compensation, the Apex Court had refused
to grant any compensation towards loss of
future prospect, but it has not been held by
the Apex Court that in case of permanent
disability, compensation towards future
prospects cannot be granted. It is apparent
that under Rule 220-A of the above Rules,
the tribunal can grant compensation for
future prospect in a case involving
permanent disability and in this case also
considering the factual situation, the
tribunal has granted compensation for
future prospects at the rate of 40%, keeping
in view the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017)16 SCC 680,
since the claimant was aged below 40 years
at the time of the accident. It is apparent
that the tribunal has not awarded any
interest on future prospects, which is
erroneous.
13. It is also apparent that the Apex
Courtin the case of Sidram(supra) has held
that in accident cases involving serious
injuries resulting in permanent disablement,
compensation for future prospects should
be awarded.
14. No other issue has been pressed
by the learned counsel for the appellant.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts,
the tribunal has not erred in awarding
compensation for future prospects, keeping
in view the serious injuries suffered by the
claimant due to which his right leg was
amputated above knee and he suffered 70%
permanent disability.
16. Accordingly, this appeal has
got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at
the admission stage.
17. The appeal is dismissed at the
admission stage.
18. The impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2025 is
affirmed.
19. Office is directed to remit back
the statutory deposit made by the appellant
to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 940
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

P.I.L. No. 813 of 2025

Samir Kumar Banerji & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
10 All. Samir Kumar Banerji & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
941
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ashish Jaiswal, Sanjeev Singh, Satish
Kumar Sahu

Counsel for the Respondents:
Rajiv Singh, S.C., Manoj Kumar Singh,
Siddhartha
Srivastava,
Vinod
Kumar
Pandey

Issue for consideration
Matter
pertains
to
seeking
direction
commanding the respondents to close/shift
liquor shops of the private respondents from the
present location/site which are within the
distance of the prohibited radius of 100 metres
as per U.P. Number and Location of Excise
Shops Rules, 1968 .

Headnotes
U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops
Rules, 1968-Rule 5- liquor shops in residential
area at a distance of nearly 50 to 60 metres-
from the entry roads of the residential colony
and an ancient Shiv temple- Rule 5(4) thereof
prohibits running/opening of liquor shops within
50 metres radius of a residential colony- the
scattered residential houses also termed as
'quarters', where commercial establishments
also exist, cannot be treated as 'residential
colony' as defined in Explanation (iv) of sub-rule
(4)(a) of Rule 5-Petition dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Bishop Johnson School and College and
another Vs. Excise Commissioner, State of U.P.
and others: 2010 (3) AWC 2626
2. State of U.P. and others Vs. Manoj Kumar
Dwivedi and others: 2008 (2) AWC 1302 (SC)
3. Akhil Bhartiya Sarva Jan Hitay Sarva Jan
Sukhay Parishad Vs. State of U.P. and PIL No.
813 of 2025 others- Writ Petition (PIL) No.
41593 of 2011 decided on 22.12.2017

List of Acts
U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops
Rules, 1968

List of Keywords
Distance of the prohibited radius of 100 metres;
residential colony; liquor shops.
Appearances of parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Ashish Jaiswal,
Sanjeev Singh, Satish Kumar Sahu Counsel for
Respondent(s) : Rajiv Singh, S.C., Manoj Kumar
Singh, Siddhartha Srivastava, Vinod Kumar
Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,
J.)

1. This petition, purportedly in public
interest, has been filed by the residents of
Karela Bagh Colony and Blocks B and C of
Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Prayagraj
praying for a direction commanding the
respondents to close/shift liquor shops of
the private respondents from the present
location/site which are within the distance
of the prohibited radius of 100 metres as
per U.P. Number and Location of Excise
Shops Rules, 1968 (the Rules, 1968) as
noticed by the Honble Supreme Court in
the case of Manoj Kumar Dwivedi which
had approved the Division Bench decision
of this Court taking view that any liquor
shop should not be situated within 100
metres of the entrance of a residential
colony (hereinafter Karela Bagh Colony).

2. As per the pleadings contained
in the petition, the private respondents have
established their foreign liquor, beer and
country liquor shops in residential area at a
distance of nearly 50 to 60 metres from the
entry roads of the residential colony and an
ancient Shiv temple. The residential colony
is said to have been established by Labour
Department and rent receipts issued by the
said Department from time to time have
been annexed.

3. Placing reliance on the Rules,
1968, the case of the petitioners is that Rule
5(4) thereof prohibits running/opening of
liquor shops within 50 metres radius of a
residential colony and a Division Bench of
this Court has already decided Civil Misc.
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition No. 39914 of 2009 Bishop
Johnson School and College and another
Vs. Excise Commissioner, State of U.P.
and others: 2010 (3) AWC 2626 taking
note of the judgment in the case of State
of U.P. and others Vs. Manoj Kumar
Dwivedi and others: 2008 (2) AWC 1302
(SC) holding minimum prohibited distance
for location of running liquor shops as
approximately 100 metres from schools,
hospitals, places of worship or factories or
the entrance to a market or a residential
colony

4. The petitioners have indicated
distances of the disputed liquor shops that
have been established in the excise year
2025-26 as 60 metres, 100 metres, less than
30 metres and less than 50 metres from a
park, entrance gate of the colony, Shiv
Temple etc. Reference to another order
passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 41593
of 2011, Akhil Bhartiya Sarva Jan Hitay
Sarva Jan Sukhay Parishad Vs. State of
U.P. and others, decided on 22.12.2017,
has also been made and it is also the case of
the petitioners that the shops in question
have encroached upon the passage between
residential houses and the owners of the
premises of the shops have let out the same
drawing nearly 6-8 times more rent in
comparison to any other ordinary shop
which would have operated in the same
premises of equal area. The petition is
accompanied by sketch map of the locality
and also certain photographs of liquor
shops and few applications moved by the
petitioners before the District Magistrate,
District Excise Officer and the Chief
Minister of the State.

5. At initial hearing of the matter,
learned Standing Counsel was granted time
to obtain instructions in the matter.
Instructions were furnished, inter alia
indicating that in terms of Rules, 2008,
shops can be opened at a distance of 50
metres from the residential colony and that
the shops in question are located at a
distance of 95 metres, 101 metres and 125
metres therefrom. The said statement made
on behalf of the State-respondents was
disputed by the petitioners and by an order
dated 06.05.2025, this Court granted time
to learned counsel for the petitioners to
obtain instructions if the petitioners were
prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
towards security for cost, in case the
submissions made on their behalf were
found to be factually incorrect. The
petitioners have already deposited a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- before the Registrar General
of this Court vide Demand Draft No.
365745 dated 19.05.2025, proof of deposit
being annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the
Misc. Application dated 25.05.2025 filed
on their behalf.

6.
During
the
course
of
proceedings, pursuant to an order dated
11.07.2025 passed on an application moved
on behalf of the petitioners, respondent no.
9 Satish Chandra Jaiswal was permitted to
be replaced by another person, namely,
Praveen
Chauhan.
Later
on,
various
affidavits were exchanged in between the
parties. A short counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the District Excise
Officer, Prayagraj (respondent no. 4) taking
a stand that under United Provinces Excise
Act, 1910, the Rules of 1968 have been
framed and in so far as the case of Manoj
Kumar Dwivedi (supra) is concerned, the
State Government has amended the Rules
bringing substitution in Rule 5(4) by way
of U.P. Number and Location of Excise
Shops (4th Amendment) Rules, 2008. As
per the amended rules, the restriction for
establishing of a liquor shop has been
indicated as 50 metres in case of Municipal
10 All. Samir Kumar Banerji & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
943
Corporation and 75 metres in case of
Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayat
and 100 metres in other areas from any
place of public worship or schools or
residential colony.

7. It is further stated in the counter
affidavit that the judgment of this Court in
the case of Bishop Johnson School and
College (supra) has been stayed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.
7551 of 2010 by order dated 22.03.2010
and the said SLP is still pending. As
regards the factual aspects of the matter, a
site plan of the locality has been annexed
indicating different distances in between
various roads and lanes and the stand taken
is that under the Excise Policy for the year
2025-26, a terminology of the composite
liquor shops has been introduced and in
so far as the concerned residential colony is
concerned, the same has not been notified
by
the
Nagar
Nigam
or
Prayagraj
Development Authority or any other
competent legal entity of the State as a
residential colony. It is further stated that
the restrictions contained in the amended
rules do not apply in an area designated as
commercial or industrial.

8. Counter affidavit has also been
filed by licensees of liquor shops, i.e.
respondent nos. 7 and 8 stating therein that
shops were allotted to them in consonance
with the provisions of Rules, 1968 and the
houses of petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are
situated adjacent to the shops of respondent
no. 8. Interim stay order passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Bishop
Johnson School and College (supra) and
few photographs of liquor shops have been
annexed.

9. By filing rejoinder affidavit,
contention raised by the respondents has
been denied and the petitioners have
maintained their stand that running of
liquor shops of all the private respondents
violates the distance restrictions imposed
under the statutory rules and by annexing
site plans/spot maps of the area, it is sought
to be contended that distance between the
residential houses in the colony and the
established liquor shops fall within the
prohibited limits imposed under the Rules.

10. Learned counsel for the parties
have advanced arguments in consonance
with the stand taken in the petition as well
as various affidavits filed on their behalf
and,
therefore,
reiteration
of
the
submissions made is not required.

11. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the
material available on record.

12. There is no dispute about the
fact that the establishment of liquor shops
is governed by Rules, 1968 which have
been amended in the year 2008. Rule
5(4)(a) of the amended Rules prescribes the
distance limits of such shops, as already
noted above. For better understanding,
relevant portion of the said rule is
reproduced as under:-

 "5. Following principles shall be
observed in determining the location and
the sites for shops/sub-shops:-

 (1) .....

(2) ....

 (3) .....

 (4)(a) No shop or sub-shop shall
be licensed within a distance of 50 (fifty)
metres
in
case
of
Municipal
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Corporation; within a distance of 75
(seventy-five)
metres
in
case
of
Municipal
Council
and
Nagar
Panchayat; and within a distance of 100
(one hundred) metres in other areas
from any place of public worship or
School or hospitals or residential colony:

 Provided that if any place of
public worship, school, hospital, residential
colony comes into existence subsequent to
the establishment of shop or sub-shop, the
provisions of this rule shall not apply;

 Provided further that the distance
restriction
shall
not
apply
in
areas
designated as commercial or industrial by
the
development
authority/industrial
development authority or other competent
authority.

 Explanation.- For the purpose of
this rule:-

 (i) "Place of Public Worship"
means
a
temple,
math,
mosque,
gurudwara, church, which is, as the case
may be, established or managed or
owned by a Public Trust registered
under the Charitable and Religious
Trust Act, 1920 or under the Charitable
Endowments Act, 1890 or by a society
registered
under
the
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 or Wakf Board;
or
a
gurudwara
registered
with
competent authority and such other
places of public worship as the State
Government may by notification specify
in this behalf from time to time.

 (ii) "School" means a pre-primary
school, primary school, middle school, high
school, inter college owned or managed or
recognized by any local authority or the
State or Central Government or any college
affiliated to or established or managed by
any University established by law.

 (iii)
"Hospital"
means
any
hospital which is managed or owned by a
local authority or the State or Central
Government and includes any private
hospital having a provision of at least 50
beds and is registered with urban or rural
body,

 (iv)
"Residential
Colony"
means
a
colony
developed
and
constructed on legally held land of which
maps have been duly approved by the
competent authority recognized by law."

13. A bare perusal of Rule 5(4)
would indicate that apart from indicating
the distance restrictions, the words place
of worship, school, hospital and
residential colony have also been
defined. In the instant case, the main thrust
of the petitioners is on the distance
restrictions with reference to residential
colony, i.e. Lal Colony/Karela Bagh
Colony. As per the pleadings contained in
the petition, the said colony was established
by Labour Department and placing reliance
on few receipts indicating payment of rent
to the Labour Department qua the quarters,
submission has been made that the colony
being a residential colony, the Staterespondents were not justified in granting
licence in favour of the private respondents
in violation of the distance restrictions
indicated in sub-rule (4)(a) of Rule 5.

14. About the aforesaid colony,
stand taken by the State-respondents is that
the same has not been notified by Nagar
Nigam
or
Prayagraj
Development
Authority or any other competent legal
entity of the State as a residential colony
and they have relied upon a communication
10 All. Samir Kumar Banerji & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
945
made by the Development Authority on
02.07.2025
addressed
to
the
Excise
Inspector, Sadar, Sector-1, Prayagraj that
the area indicated by the petitioners is
affected by the revised master plan of 2031
and certain distances from road and
proposed market street have also been
indicated in the communication.

15. In the aforesaid background of
facts,
a
look
at
the
definition
of
'residential colony' as contained in
Explanation (iv) of Rule 5(4)(a), it is
noticed that in order to apply distance
restrictions indicated in sub-rule (4)(a), a
residential colony must be a colony
developed and constructed on a legally held
land of which maps have been duly
approved by the competent authority
recognized by law. The Court cannot, in
absence of any material on record, assume
that any residential structures, in whatever
form they exist in a particular area, would
fall within the definition of residential
colony so as to apply distance restrictions
in so far as establishment of liquor shops or
granting licence qua them is concerned.

16. We find that except annexing
few rent receipts and making a submission
that since the colony was established by
Labour Department, it falls within the
definition of 'residential colony', no other
material has been placed before us by
which it can be presumed that the colony
had been developed and constructed on
legally held land of which maps have been
duly approved by the competent authority
recognized by law so as to bring the
structures strictly within the definition of
'residential colony' for the purposes of the
case in hand. It may be true that the Labour
Department had allegedly established the
colony, [although there is no evidence even
to that effect except that the rent receipts
contain a heading 'श्रम (गृह) दवभ ग, उत्तर प्रिेश, रसीि
(दकर य मक न तथ अन्य भुगत न)'], but there is no
other material on record to indicate that the
colony was established on a legally held
land and in respect of constructions, maps
had been duly approved by the competent
authority recognized by law.

17. The said aspect assumes
significance for the reason that the
photographs which have been placed on
record by both sides in the form of
Annexures to the affidavits, do not at all
indicate that any residential colony worth
the name is in existence. Rather the
photographs depict that the liquor shops
have been established near or adjacent to
one or the other residential house or
commercial
establishment.
Some
spot
maps/site plans annexed to the affidavits
indicate various commercial activities in
the locality in the name of Jazz Studio,
Pappu Traders, Furniture Shops, Singh
General Store, Prayag General Store, Maa
Eye Care Centre, CS Homeo Pharmacy etc
and, therefore, we have serious doubts
regarding the status of the locality as
residential
colony
otherwise
commercial activities in the locality which
too are governed by one or other statutory
restrictions, could not have been permitted.

18. This Court, while examining a
challenge laid by the petitioners with
reference to Rules, 1968, amended upto
date, has to draw a distinction between a
'residential
house'
and
'residential
colony' and in absence of any cogent
evidence on record to infer that the liquor
shops have been established in violation of
the restrictions imposed by Rules, the
scattered residential houses also termed as
quarters,
where
commercial
establishments also exist, cannot be treated
as residential colony as defined in
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Explanation (iv) of sub-rule (4)(a) of Rule
5.

19. We may now examine the
submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners
qua
violation
of
distance
restrictions in relation to Shiv Temple
situated in the locality. To that effect, the
only pleading is contained in paragraph no.
3 of the petition wherein it is stated that the
liquor shops have been opened nearly 5060 metres from the 'प्र चीन दशव मंदिर' situated at
opposite side road. There is no photograph
of the temple annexed either to the petition
or to any other affidavit on record and qua
the said temple, one application dated
25.03.2025 submitted by Shri Ram Leela
Samiti of Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar
(Kareli), Prayag addressed to the District
Magistrate is there as Annexure No. 7 to
the petition wherein it is stated that the
shop which is functional for the last 20-25
years is situated at a distance of 10 metres
from Shiv Temple which is existent since
1935.

20. As we have discussed the
meaning and import of a residential
colony in relation to the controversy
involved in the present case, in the same
manner reference may be made to the
Explanation (i) of sub-rule (4)(a) of Rule 5
which defines 'place of public worship',
as already quoted hereinabove. There is
nothing on record to indicate that the
concerned Shiv Temple is a temple
established or managed or owned by a
public trust registered under the Charitable
Religious Trust Act,1920 or under the
Charitable and Endowments Act, 1890 or
by a society registered under Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and, therefore, a
bare statement contained in an application
that the temple exists in the locality since
1935 and in absence of any specific
material
in
consonance
with
the
requirements of Explanation (i), we are not
inclined to apply the distance restrictions
qua the Shiv Temple also and decline to
interfere with the matter on that count too.

21. As far as the judgment of this
Court in the case of Bishop Johnson
School and College (supra), this Court,
after interpreting Rule 5(4) of the Rules,
1968, had struck down the same by holding
it as violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, however, the said
order has been stayed by the Honble
Supreme Court on 22.03.2010 in SLP
(Civil) No. 7551 of 2010 which is pending
and, therefore, we cannot make any
observation in that regard in this case. We
are deciding this case in the light of
existing provisions of amended Rules and
are of the view that the petitioners have
utterly
failed
to
establish
beyond
reasonable
doubt
that
the
distances
indicated by them from one or the other
residential structure(s) or the Shiv Temple,
violate the statutory mandate.

22. Apart from the above, the
material on record indicates that the shops
are situated in the area for the last several
decades and as per the excise policy of the
State-respondents,
the
licences
are
granted/renewed on periodical basis. In this
view of the matter, merely because under
the latest Excise Policy of the year 202526, licences have been granted/renewed,
the same would not be treated as violation
of distance restrictions imposed under the
Rules and challenge in that regard on the
pleas raised, is otherwise found to be
highly belated. Further, material on record
indicates that some personal interest of one
or other petitioner and/or their personal
grudge with one or the other private
respondent may be involved in the matter,
10 All. Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
947
particularly when the allegations of
charging higher rent have been made in
paragraph no. 21 of the petition and in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 7 and 8, indications have
been made regarding close proximity of the
premises of some petitioners and some
private respondents and user of commercial
activities like charging station and, in view
of the existence of commercial nature of
the establishments on the spot, we are
satisfied that the petitioners have failed to
bring their case within the four corners of
above
referred
statutory
provisions/involving public interest.
23.
In
view
of
the
above
discussion, we are not inclined to issue any
direction in the matter however, while
dismissing the petition, we may observe
that since pursuant to the order passed by
this Court, the petitioners have deposited a
sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Registrar
General of this Court and have genuinely
contested the matter as per their case, they
should not be financially penalized and,
therefore, the amount deposited by them is
entitled to be refunded to them in
accordance with law.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed, however, the amount of Rs.
50,000/- deposited by the petitioners before
this Court, vide Demand Draft No. 365745
dated 19.05.2025, shall be refunded to them
immediately on moving an application by
them before the Registrar General of this
Court.

----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 947
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025

Connected with other cases

Shashank Sachan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Pawan Kumar Pandey, Sharad Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh, Sarvesh Kumar
Dubey

Issue for Consideration
1. Nature of deputation and relevance of
condition mentioned in the deputation order,
while
deciding
the
legality
of
order
of
repatriation to the parent department.
2. Permissibility of passing the repatriation order
before alternative hands have become available
through outsourcing under new policy dated
19.07.2022.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Repatriation - Nature of
deputation - Transfer by deputation and
appointment by deputation - Earlier,
petitioners were working as Assistant
teacher - After online examination, they
were posted on deputation on the post of
District Coordinator under Samagra Siksha
Project - After sometime, the impugned
order of repatriation was passed - It's
legality was challenged arguing that the
petitioner's deputation was treated as as
'transfer by deputation', though it was an
'appointment by deputation' - Relevance
of condition mentioned in the deputation
order - Relevance of salary being paid by
parent department - Repatriation order
was passed before alternative hands have
become available through outsourcing
under new policy dated 19.07.2022 -
Permissibility :

Held : The order clearly mentions that lien of
the deputationist will continue to be maintained
in the parent department. No doubt it was a