Scattered Houses Can't Be Termed a Residential Colony: Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Liquor Shops Near Colony and Temple

In a significant ruling Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by residents of Prayagraj seeking relocation or closure of liquor shops allegedly established within prohibited distance of a residential colony and a temple. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that in absence of legal approval of colony maps or documentary evidence proving the religious character of the temple, no violation of statutory distance norms under the U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968, could be established.

“The Court Cannot Presume Any Residential Structure to Be a Colony Without Legal Approval”: No Relief Granted Under Excise Rules

The main contention of the petitioners, residents of Karela Bagh Colony and Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Prayagraj, was that the liquor shops had been unlawfully permitted to operate within 50 to 100 metres of their residential colony and a public place of worship — a Shiv Temple. They relied on rent receipts issued by the Labour Department and local maps to show that the area constituted a “residential colony” under Rule 5(4)(a) of the 1968 Rules.

The Court, however, rejected this argument categorically, observing that under the statutory framework, a “residential colony” must be developed on legally held land with approved layout maps from a competent legal authority. The Bench held:

“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...”

Further, while the petitioners relied on certain receipts from the Labour Department to claim that the area was established as a colony, the Court found no evidence that the land was legally approved or the constructions were sanctioned by a competent authority. It concluded:

“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 had been duly approved...”

Commercial Activities in the Locality Weaken Claim of It Being a ‘Residential Colony’

The Court also took note of the commercial nature of the area in question. Photographs and maps placed on record by both parties indicated the presence of businesses such as general stores, studios, pharmacies, and eye care centres operating in the same vicinity. Based on this, the Court found:

“Photographs depict that the liquor shops have been established near or adjacent to one or the other residential house or commercial establishment... we have serious doubts regarding the status of the locality as ‘residential colony’...”

The Court drew a crucial legal distinction between an individual residential house and a legally recognized “residential colony” under the Rules, holding that only the latter attracts statutory protection from proximity of liquor shops.

“No Evidence That Shiv Temple Is a Recognized Place of Worship Under the Rules”: Distance Norms Not Invoked

Another major plank of the petitioners’ argument was that the liquor shops were functioning within 50 to 60 metres of a Shiv Temple said to be in existence since 1935. However, the Court found no documentary evidence proving that the temple met the legal definition of a “place of public worship” under Rule 5(4)(a) Explanation (i).

The Rule specifically requires that such a place must be owned or managed by a public trust registered under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or the Wakf Board.

The Bench held:

“There is nothing on record to indicate that the concerned Shiv Temple is a temple established or managed or owned by a public trust... we are not inclined to apply the distance restrictions qua the Shiv Temple also...”

A mere application from a local cultural committee referring to the temple’s existence and the shops’ proximity was held to be insufficient in the absence of documentary proof.

Court Highlights Personal Disputes and Commercial Interests Behind the PIL

The Court also found indications that the PIL was not entirely guided by genuine public interest. Referring to allegations about inflated rent and the proximity of petitioners’ houses to the shops, it noted that commercial rivalries or personal grievances could be involved. The Bench remarked:

“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... particularly when the allegations of charging higher rent have been made...”

The Court was therefore satisfied that no clear statutory breach or public interest violation had been proven and that the area in question had hosted the liquor shops for decades, with renewals granted under the prevailing Excise Policy for 2025–26.

Petition Dismissed, But Rs. 50,000/- Security Deposit Ordered to Be Refunded

While dismissing the PIL, the Court noted that the petitioners had deposited a security amount of ₹50,000/- as directed earlier to ensure that their claims were not frivolous. Given that the matter was genuinely contested, the Court directed refund of the amount:

“Since... the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Registrar General... and have genuinely contested the matter... they should not be financially penalized...”

The Court allowed the refund of ₹50,000/- on filing of a simple application before the Registrar General.

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Samir Kumar Banerji & Others v. State of U.P. & Others reaffirms the principle that statutory protection under excise laws regarding the location of liquor shops is strictly dependent on legal classification and documentary proof. The ruling makes it clear that not every cluster of homes can be treated as a “residential colony”, and not every shrine qualifies as a protected “place of public worship” unless it is registered under relevant statutory frameworks. The Court’s insistence on evidentiary rigour, especially in public interest petitions, signals judicial caution against misuse of PIL jurisdiction for private motives or vague claims.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2025