Can a permission under the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 decide whether liquor may be served at a concert? Not according to the Allahabad High Court, which has quashed the Lucknow Police Alcohol Ban on a Bacardi-sponsored live music event as illegal, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction.
Lucknow: Condition No. 18, the Lucknow Police alcohol ban that barred the serving or consumption of alcohol at a live singing event in Gomti Nagar, has been quashed by the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, which held that nothing in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 allows the police to permit or deny the serving of intoxicating products [Atlani Brothers Live v. State of U.P. and 5 Others].
Allowing the writ petition on October 8, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary also found that the organiser had been discriminated against, since no such condition had been placed on similar events in the city.
A permission about decibels
The Bench noted that the Rules of 2000 require the State to maintain ambient noise standards and to classify areas as industrial, commercial, residential or silence zones, with noise limits for each in Schedule I. The organiser had been permitted to keep the sound level below 75 dB(A), the limit for an industrial area. On the condition at issue, the Court said:
“We further find that there is no provision in the Rules of 2000 with regard to the power and/or scope of permitting or denying the permission for serving of intoxicating products, including alcohol. To that extent, Condition No.18 imposed by the Additional Police Commissioner (Law and Order) is illegal, arbitrary, and beyond jurisdiction.”
Singled out
On the comparison with other events, the Court held:
“We further find that no such condition has been imposed by the respondents while granting permission in similar events, and therefore this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have been adversely discriminated while issuing the impugned permission.”
A concert, a sponsor and eighteen conditions
The petitioner, Atlani Brothers Live, a proprietorship firm acting through its proprietor Mamta Atlani, had planned a live singing event on October 10, 2026, between 5:00 pm and 9:45 pm at Dayal Gateway, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The programme was sponsored by Casa Bacardi, a company in the liquor business, and the organiser said liquor would be sold at the event.
On its application under the Rules of 2000, the Additional Police Commissioner (Law and Order) granted permission by a letter dated September 30, 2026, subject to 18 conditions. Condition No. 18 said that no alcohol or intoxicating substance would be served or used during the concert.
The petitioner’s case
The firm challenged only that condition. It argued that the condition was outside the Rules of 2000 and that any restriction on liquor was a matter for the Excise Department. Because of the condition, it said, it could not even apply for an FL-11 (Event Bar) licence under the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Grant of Bar License) Rules, 2020.
It also pointed to the permission issued on July 11, 2026 for another concert, “Papon Live”, where no such restriction was imposed. The petitioner added that, on the oral instructions of the police, it had already deposited Rs 42,730 on September 30, 2026 for the deployment of police personnel.
What the State said
The Standing Counsel opposed the petition, saying such permissions are ordinarily granted subject to conditions. He could not, however, dispute that Condition No. 18 is not a condition prescribed under the Rules of 2000, and he added that an application made to the Excise Department would be considered expeditiously.
A fresh order by 11:30 am the next day
The Court set aside the permission letter of September 30, 2026 and directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Lucknow, to pass a fresh order, without Condition No. 18, by 11:30 am on October 9, 2026. The petitioner was to appear before him at 11:00 am with a copy of the judgment, and the office of the Chief Standing Counsel was told to communicate the order at once.
The fresh permission was then to be placed before the District Excise Officer, Lucknow, who was directed to decide the petitioner’s licence application in accordance with law by 5:00 pm the same day. The Court made it clear that the petitioner would have to deposit all requisite fees and comply with every condition required by law.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates a basic rule of administrative law: an authority can attach conditions to a permission only within the four corners of the statute under which it acts. A noise permission under the Rules of 2000 deals with decibel levels and zones, so a liquor ban slipped into it is a condition without legal source, however well meant.
The judgment also leaves liquor regulation where the law places it, with the Excise Department and its licensing regime, and applies Article 14 to event permissions: when similar events are cleared without a restriction, singling out one organiser for a harsher condition is discrimination. For event organisers and police across Uttar Pradesh, the order marks the limit of what a noise clearance can contain.
Case Title: Atlani Brothers Live Thru. Its Proprietor Mrs. Mamta Atlani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and 5 Others [Writ C No. 11072 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow)
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocates Suryansh Narula, Ankit Verma and Pali Anurag
For the State: Chief Standing Counsel