SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. :-

The petitioner has approached this court invoking its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 22.7.1994, directing him to shift his country liquor shop to other place, failing which, the same would be closed pursuant to powers under Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 ("The Prohibition Act" for short).

2. The petitioner has contended that a licence for retail sale of country liquor had been granted in faovur of his father by order dated 17.10.1973 by Respondent No.2. Said licence had been subsequently transferred in the name of Petitioner on the death of his father, under order dated 31.3.1993. The shop, as such, is being run for over 21 years and there had been no complaints whatsoever in respect of smooth running of the same. It is contended that a few women and others residing in the recent past had been bent upon to close down said licenced business of the petitioner and had initiated a campaign for the same. It had been politically motivated under the stratagem of political rivals. Said persons had influenced and instigated a few women and residents of village Shivna to close down said licenced business and for said purpose, had undertaken a signature drive.

3. A show cause notice dated 7.5.1994, came to be issued by Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner, seeking explanation as to why the licence be not cancelled with reference to Sections 54 and 56 of the Prohibition Act, originating from alleged complaints by Women Organizations against the country liquor shop and a resolution passed by Gram Sabha, referring to that, according to orders passed by the Government, licence of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.

4. Petitioner had tendered his explanatory reply on 23.5.1994 to Respondent No.2. He had submitted that alleged complaints of Women Organizations have been brought about by his political rivals and are politically I motivated. Petitioner had denied that Gram Sabha, as alleged, had ever been held for said purpose. He had not received notice for Gram Sabha, nor there had been any announcement by a beat of drums. Signatures of women and, others had been taken at the behest of political leaders who had inimical terms with petitioner. Petitioner had pointed out the position that only 230 persons had given their signatures from total population of 14,000 villagers. Under said drive, the political leaders had been supporting business of bootleggers and promoting sale of french polish in the village and that about 20 persons, inclusive of local leaders, had indulged into such activities and that criminal cases have been registered against them referring to their names in the petition. Petitioner had also requested to let him have copies of government resolutions/circulars being relied on, as also had requested for copies of alleged representations/complaints by women organizations and the alleged resolution passed by Gram Sabha. It is submitted that he had not been supplied with said copies at all.

5. The petitioner has referred to that in Writ Petitions No. 580 of 1994 and 859 of 1994, a co-ordinate bench of this Court at Nagpur, has decided similar matters and quashed and set aside orders, issued by the Collectors of Chandrapur and Yawatmal under which cancellations/shifting of the country liquor shops were directed on complaints by women organizations. Petitioner has produced a copy of a writ issued pursuant to said orders. Petitioner has contended that although the show-cause notice had made reference to Sections 54 and 56 of the Prohibition Act, yet the impugned order refers to Section 142(1) of the Prohibition Act and as such, the impugned order is an action in excess of the provisions referred to in the show cause notice and is without jurisdiction. Petitioner has contended that the show cause notice', as well as the impugned order, are vague and without material particulars of the basis on which the same have been issued.

6. Affidav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document