order coming into force

CHANDIGARH: When Chandigarh-based activist Harman Sidhu filed a PIL against shops selling liquor along major highways in the country, he had only one thing in mind — stopping people from drinking and driving. The last thing he wanted to see was popular watering holes in cities shut down.That’s because he, too, enjoys his drink and does not support prohibition.With the Supreme Court ’s, many bars and restaurants in Sidhu’s hometown — Chandigarh — have been forced to go dry. “I, too, am feeling the pinch,” he says. “I love to drink and I have to go that extra mile to fetch my stock. I can’t accept that a large part of Chandigarh is going dry.”He blames the Chandigarh administration for what he calls a “goof-up”. “Highways are supposed to be outside cities and to be used only for long drives,” he explains. “But thanks to the Chandigarh authorities’ goof-up, there are many highways within Chandigarh. This could well have been a world record of sorts. Now everybody, including me, will have to suffer.”Chandigarh had declared many of its thoroughfares as state highways in 2006 because the municipal corporation didn't have the resources to maintain these stretches and wanted Central funds for their upkeep. Just before the Supreme Court order, the authorities de-notified these roads and changed the nomenclature to major district roads. The Punjab and Haryana high court had accepted the change, but Sidhu challenged the denotification in the Supreme Court. The next date of hearing is April 17.Because Chandigarh is a comparatively smaller city, a large part of its pubs and bars fall within the 500-metre rule, forcing at least 91 bars, pubs and restaurants to go dry.As Sidhu puts it, “Poora ragra lag gaya, sare hi hun lapete gaye ne (Everybody has been steamrolled). Sixtyeight petitions against the order have been filed in the Supreme Court by various states and associations, and Chandigarh could have been the 69th. But the administration is getting into technicalities and is making things complicated. Had they explained their case citing territorial reasons, things would have been different. Instead they de-notified and changed the nomenclature of roads, adding to the confusion.”All the same, he insists that his original belief of not allowing people to drink and drive remains undiluted.