Karnataka HC says Gandhi statue not place of worship

Karnataka HC says Gandhi statue not place of worship

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Bengaluru:08.09.2020

By no stretch of imagination can a statue of Mahatma Gandhi be called ‘a place of worship’, the Karnataka high court observed on Monday, turning down a PIL questioning the grant of licence to Tonique, a liquor boutique on MG Road.

Bengaluru-based advocate AV Amarnathan had filed the PIL, saying the liquor vend is 30 metres from the Gandhi statue. Stating that Rule 3(3) of under Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, prohibits liquor vends near places of worship and similar places, he had said the Gandhi statue falls in that category as citizens visit his statue every year to pay respects to the father of the nation.

Rejecting the plea, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka said even Gandhi would not have reconciled to the thought of him being worshipped.

Though the petitioner orally mentioned about rule 5 (2)(a) of the said rules of 1967 wherein the authority can reject a licence if there is a likelihood of peace, tranquility and morality getting breached or affected, the bench noted that though the rules provide for that, he had not pleaded it in his petition.

The court perused the report submitted by the local tahsildar, who undertook a spot inspection on July 23, following a July 9 order of the court. The inspection was carried out in the presence of the petitioner and representative of Tonique liquor vend.

As per the tahsildar’s report, St Mark’s Cathedral is 144 metres from the vend and the deputy commissioner of police office 126.5 metres away — well beyond the 100-metre minimum distance prescribed for granting of licence.

Though Amarnathan claimed the tahsildar did not properly conduct the inspection and he had submitted a protest regarding the report, the bench said the petitioner has not shown any material to indicate the church and DCP’s office are within the prohibited distance of 100 metres.

The petitioner had pointed about the existence of Bal Bhavan, a children’s play centre, within 50 metres. The petitioner had sought withdrawal of licence granted to the vend and action against officials responsible for granting it.

In the earlier proceedings, the challenge on that ground was given up after he could not show Bal Bhavan was in the category of institutions notified under the excise rules.

An advocate had filed a PIL against the grant of licence to a liquor boutique, just 30 metres from the Gandhi statue