lucknow despite barely 48 hours left for the government to submit a compliance report before the high court on removal or closure of liquor shops from near residential localities religious places and educational institutions the district authorities were yet to begin with any drive to ensure that the court orders were being adhered to most of the liquor stores named in the list issued by the high court for action continued to do brisk business all through friday showing hardly any signs of closure by the deadline sunday eveningwhile district magistrate dm lucknow rn tripathi and senior superintendent of police ssp ashutosh pandey were not available for comments in this regard their subordinate staff feigned ignorance about any such drive in the offing in the near future are abhi bahut time hai saari dukaane seal karne ke liye to ek ghanta hi kaafi hai dont bother there is enough time to seal the liquor stores that are flouting norms it will not even take an hour to seal all the shops said an officer of the district administration when contacted for the details of action initiated in compliance with the court ordersthe lucknow bench of allahabad high court comprising justice ak yog and rp yadav hearing a public interest litigation filed by a city lawyer manoj kumar dwivedi of vinay khand in gomtinagar issued orders on thursday that all liquor stores flouting norms regarding running of such a business in public places must be closed and a compliance report be submitted before the court within the next 72 hours the high court driectives were welcomed by the lucknowites many of whom have been fighting for long to get such places of nuisance shifted from near residential localities educational institutions and religious places where they had come up in blatant violation of the provisions of up number and location of excise shop upnles rules 1968till date the excise department had made the best of upnles rules which states that liquor stores must not be opened within close proximity of educational institutions entrance of residential localities and religious places despite the issue being picked up by the media time and again authorities failed to initiate any action against such liquor stores on the plea that the term close proximity has not been defined in the upnles rules 1968 and continued to define the term in their own interpretationduring the hearing of pil the bench defined the term close proximity as not less than 100 metres and ordered for listing of all shops that violate the provisions though 56 shops violating these standards were identified the court ordered the authorities to reexamine all the liquor stores in the district and confirm if the directives have been adhered to in toto