Meghalaya HC says moral objections can't shut legally licensed liquor shop

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that moral objections from church leaders or local residents cannot be used to prevent the operation of a legally licensed liquor outlet that complies with the state's excise laws.

Delivering the order, Justice H.S. Thangkhiew directed the authorities to allow the owner of an Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) retail shop to operate her outlet at Danakgre in West Garo Hills district, holding that she had fulfilled all statutory requirements for relocating the shop from Jengjal market.

The petitioner had obtained a no-objection certificate from the local Nokma (village head), secured permission from the Excise Department in January 2025 to shift the outlet, and possessed a valid licence. However, she alleged that the Superintendent of Excise later instructed her to shut the shop following objections raised by local church elders and members of a development committee.

The court noted that official inquiries found no violation of the Meghalaya Excise Act or Rules and confirmed that the relocated outlet was situated beyond the mandatory 200-metre distance from places of worship, educational institutions and hospitals.

Justice Thangkhiew observed that the objections were based solely on moral considerations and not on any legal or substantial grounds that could justify cancelling the licence or preventing the shop from operating.

The court also took note of official reports stating that another licensed restaurant-cum-bar was functioning about 105 metres from the petitioner's shop, while illegal liquor sales were widespread in the area. It observed that the presence of a licensed outlet could help curb illicit liquor trade.

While reiterating that there is no fundamental right to trade in liquor, the High Court said that once a licence is granted in accordance with the law, it creates a legal right that cannot be taken away except through due process.

Holding that the petitioner's licence and permissions were valid and that the objections lacked legal merit, the court directed the authorities to permit the operation of the liquor outlet at its relocated site.