Fountainhead Entertainment PVT. LTD., Thr. Its Auth. Rep., Collin Curry. vs. State Of Goa, Thr. The Chief Secretary And 5 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner had locus standi to file the petition as they would be adversely affected if Respondent No. 3 was restrained from supplying liquor during the event organized by the Petitioner. The Court found no substance in the respondents' submission regarding locus standi. Regarding the justification for the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C., the Court observed that the facts of the case were different from the cited Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, where the individual's past conduct warranted restrictions. Here, there was no allegation of past misconduct by the Petitioner leading to law and order issues due to liquor service. The Court found that no case was made out by the respondents for issuing orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the event was to be held in a hotel already permitted for 24-hour liquor service under Rule 99(3) of the Goa Excise Rules, 1964. The Court also considered that the Petitioner had made substantial prior arrangements and financial commitments. Consequently, the Court held that there would be no violation of public interest if the event was allowed and liquor served beyond 11:00 p.m. until 1:30 a.m. as proposed by the Petitioner. The Court accepted the Petitioner's statement that the event would be videographed at their cost, no breaches would be permitted, and no politicians would be invited. The Court also permitted the respondents to depute two representatives to attend the event. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were restricted to the facts of this case and the order would not be used as a precedent.

Facts

Fountainhead Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 28, 2019, passed by the District Magistrate, North Goa, under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The order restricted the sale and serving of liquor after 11:00 p.m. until midnight of April 23, 2019, and also imposed restrictions from 6:00 p.m. on April 21, 2019, to 12:00 hours on April 23, 2019. The Petitioner sought an exemption for its event, "Goafest," scheduled for April 11-13, 2019, held at Respondent No. 3's hotel. The Petitioner had made substantial advance payments (over ₹3.46 crores) and purchased liquor for the event, which had a total budget of ₹5.83 crores. The Petitioner argued that the District Magistrate's order was not justified under Section 144 Cr.P.C. as there was no apprehended danger or law and order situation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, imposing restrictions on the sale and serving of liquor after 11:00 p.m. was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly concerning the Petitioner's event "Goafest" scheduled for April 11-13, 2019? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 144 Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's Arguments: - The District Magistrate failed to indicate any prevailing law and order situation necessitating the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. - None of the conditions prescribed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. were satisfied. - The Petitioner was only serving liquor, not selling it, and Section 29(A) of the Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964, was not attracted. - Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was not applicable as the elections were scheduled for April 23, 2019, much after the event. - Rule 99(3) of the Goa Excise Duty Rules, 1964, permitted 24-hour liquor service for a Five Star Hotel like Respondent No. 3, which had already obtained necessary permission. - The Petitioner had made substantial financial commitments and incurred significant expenses. - The Petitioner offered to allow videography of the event after 11:00 p.m. and depute representatives of the respondents to witness it. Respondents' Arguments: - The Petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition as they were not selling liquor, and the order prohibited sale by Respondent No. 3. - There was no violation of Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. - Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, concerning the invocation of Section 144 Cr.P.C.