JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE R.G., J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties.

2.Heard Shri Jagtap, Advocate for the petitioner, Mrs. Jog, A.G.P., for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Sambre, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

3.The petitioner Mahila Mandal of a locality known as "Deputy Signal Mahila Mandal" (hereinafter referred to as "Mandal" for the purpose of brevity) has approached this Court challenging the order dated January 22, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2-Commissioner, State Excise, in Appeal No. 34 of 2001, whereby the learned Commissioner set aside the order dated January 9, 2002 passed by the Collector, Nagpur, whereby the Collector for State Excise-respondent No. 3 has directed the respondent No. 4 shift his shop to some other area by making necessary application for permission to shift, because of objections raised by the residents of the locality.

4.The petitioner Mandal through its President Smt. Chandrakalabai Thakur appeared to be alert and vigilant about social problem muchless which are created because of establishment or installation of country liquor shops in the residential locality that too thickly populated. A passing reference at this stage, has to be made to a point that the area in which the shop of the respondent No. 4 is allowed to be started and is doing the business as on today is situated in the colony, which is inhabited by majority of economically unsound people and lower middle class people. The petitioner Mandals contention is that inspite of objections, the shop of respondent No. 4 was allowed to be located in Ward No. 30, Lakadganj, Nagpur, which does its business under the licence CL III.

5.It is clear that the residents of the locality and precisely those who have the social problems including that Mandal, who are also the members of the present petitioner Mandal filed a complaint before the Collector on November 24, 2001 requesting to close the said shop as since the starting of shop in question, many many problems are being created including that of safety of womenfolk. The document, which is at Annexure II on page No. 13 of the petition speaks volumes about it and the problems faced by the people in the locality. Unsocial elements were increased and how this unsocial elements harmed the society need no more clarification.

6.The respondent No. 3 appeared to have taken cognizance and rightly so of the complaint. The members of the petitioner were called for hearing by the Collector on December 1, 2001 whereafter the Collector passed the Order bearing No. C.L.R. 1101/12592/11 dated 9th January, 2002, whereby the Collector after having referred to the complaint and the contents thereof reached to the conclusion that running and conducting of business of country liquor shop by the respondent No. 4 is likely create law and order situation in the locality. The Collector appeared to have also obtained necessary report from the police authority before passing order and then reached to the conclusion directing the respondent No. 4 to shift his shop somewhere else by making necessary application in that respect. This order passed by the Collector is in accordance with the provision of section 142 of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

7.Section 142(i) of the Act specifically referred to the opinion formed by the Collector and that the opinion has to be formed keeping in view the public interest as regards the public peace, and this section further empowers the Collector even to close down such a sale of intoxication for a particular period as would be directed by him. While passing this order, the Collector rightly sought support from Rule 27 of Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973. Exercising the powers under these two provisions of the statute and the Rules thereunder, Collector exercised his discretion ordering respondent No. 4 to keep the shop close with immediate effect till March 31, 2002 or till it is shifted to some other place.

8.The order o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document