Bar/Pub's Right To Operate Must Be Balanced With Citizens' And Children's Right To Noise-Free, Peaceful And Orderly Environment: Delhi High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while disposing of a writ petition filed by a resident against the alleged illegal operation of a bar and lounge in New Delhi, directed the Excise Commissioner to examine the petitioner's grievance and pass appropriate orders within two months. The Court observed that a bar's right to operate must be balanced against citizens' and children's entitlement to a peaceful, noise-free environment. Noting that authorities had remained inactive despite repeated complaints regarding the bar's operation beyond permissible hours and non-issuance of GST bills, the Court remarked that in a society governed by rule of law, genuine citizen complaints must not go unaddressed, as it falls upon the authorities — and not the individual — to enforce the law.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to restrain a bar and lounge operating at R.K. Ashram Marg Metro Station from functioning beyond 01:00 AM and to initiate legal action against the concerned respondents. He alleged that the establishment remained open until 02:12 AM and, on certain occasions, until 04:30 AM. It was further contended that instead of issuing GST-compliant bills, handwritten slips were being provided. The petitioner stated that he had submitted complaints to the Commissioner of Delhi Police on 12.09.2025 and 29.10.2025, to the DCP, Delhi on 15.09.2025, and to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax on 29.10.2025, but no action had been taken.
The Court referred to Rule 55(1) of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010, which provides that the hours for sale of liquor shall be specified by order of the Excise Commissioner. It also noted Section 4 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, which outlines the powers and functions of the Excise Commissioner, including regulation and monitoring of liquor sale and consumption.
The Court recorded, “The essential grievance of the petitioner relates to unregulated operation of respondent no. 5–Bunon Bar and Lounge (hereinafter ‘said Bar’)”. It noted the petitioner’s claim that the bar “remains open till 02:12 AM and on certain occasions even till 04:30 AM” and that instead of GST bills, “‘Kachchi hand written slips’ are given as bills (so called).”
Referring to the statutory framework, the Court extracted Rule 55(1) of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010: “The hours for the sale of liquor shall be such as may be specified in an order made by the Excise Commissioner and different orders may be specified for different categories of licences.” It also reproduced Section 4 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, including the functions “to regulate, control and monitor manufacture, possession, import, export, transport, sale and consumption of liquor and other intoxicants” and “to curb illegal trade in liquor and illicit distillation.”
The Court stated, “Bars and pubs, without doubt, are allowed to operate within the jurisdiction of this Court.” It further observed, “However, the regulation of a bar, as the discussion above reveals, is governed by, inter alia, the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and the Rules made thereunder.” It added that complaints relating to public nuisance are to be considered under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court observed, “In a civilized society, governed by the rule of law, a genuine complaint of a citizen should not remain unattended.” It further stated, “The authorities are under an obligation to consider and decide upon the same in accordance with the extant rules and regulations.”
On enforcement, the Court recorded, “The rule of law requires not merely the existence of laws, but also their timely and effective enforcement.” It continued, “When authorities continue to be inert on the face of complaints made to it by citizens, it not only erodes public confidence in governance, but also makes that sole individual of this country, feel remediless.”
Finally, the Court stated, “Having considered the overall conspectus of the facts and situation, the Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner has to be taken to its logical conclusion by the respondent authorities.”
The Court directed, “Let the present petition be treated as an application, and concerned Excise Commissioner to look into the petitioner’s grievance, and to pass appropriate orders in relation thereto, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the excise Commissioner is of the view that the grievance will have to be considered by the concerned District Magistrate, let all the authorities to work in tandem so that the complaint can be dealt with appropriately. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.”
Case Title: Mahesh Chand v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1195/2026
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
