The central legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of powers under Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, must be based on objective satisfaction of the circumstances warranting the exercise of such powers and cannot be sustained merely on apprehension or representation without any basis.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the parties by consent finally.

2. Petitioners-partners of firm M/s Anjali Wines in this petition impugn order dated 30-03-2015 bearing No. FLR/112015/151/ Supdt. passed by Respondent No.2-Collector, Beed purportedly staying shifting of business run by petitioners under licence bearing no. FL-II/CL/FL/TOD-3.

3. Petitioners hold aforesaid licence and have been running business under partnership firm in the name and style, M/s Anjali Wines at Nagar road, Beed. Petitioners submit that they were carrying on business at Beed in the premises belonging to one Mr. Sanap. Since Mr. Sanap had been insisting on to vacate the premises, the petitioners had applied to authorities for permitting them to shift their licenced business to another place in Beed itself, namely, in the premises bearing no. 1-3-2609, a part of property bearing no. 1-3-90 in gut no. 3, ward no. 1 on the same road i.e. Nagar road. Their application appears to have been processed and accepted by the office of the Collector, Beed and on 10-3-2015, the authorities directed the petitioners to deposit amounts of Rs. 6,93,010/- and Rs. 2,41,810/-. Petitioners have duly paid said amounts under challans in government treasury.

4. Thereafter, under letter dated 11-03-2015, the petitioners were permitted to run their business in aforesaid new premises. Accordingly, petitioners have started running their business in said premises.

5. However, all of a sudden, they received an order dated 30-03-2015 issued by respondent no.2-Collector, Beed, purportedly exercising powers under section 142 (1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as “the Act”), staying operation and effect of the order under which petitioners were permitted to shift the business at the new place and further directing them to stop transactions until further orders. The narration in said order dated 30-03-2015 makes reference to a request, under representation dated 19-03-2015 made by a few citizens, not to permit the petitioners to run business in the new premises which, according to said persons, is close to Siddhi Hanuman temple as well as Datta temple and further threatening of agitation by citizens, including woman and children. Thereupon, the Collector had passed impugned order dated 30-03-2015.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners Mrs. Dube-Bajpai vehemently submits, apprehension being entertained as appearing under impugned order dated 30-03-2015 is without any basis. The impugned order was passed only on complaints which were not made known to the petitioners and directly the action impugned had been taken. She further contends that in any case, business cannot be affected perpetually under impugned order purportedly passed in exercise of powers under section 142 (1) of the Act which are ephemeral in nature. She further submits, the impugned order directing stay to shifting and stoppage of running of business is absolutely arbitrary, against the provisions of law as well as against the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. It is contended that said order, in fact, tantamounts to review of the order granting permission to shift and run the business at the new place. Impugned order has been passed in stark breach of noble principles of natural justice. She further contends that the order has been passed without application of mind and without giving consideration to the factual aspects and without analysis of the same and as such, the order is bad in law.

7. Learned counsel further goes on to submit that there is nothing on record to show that before passing the impugned order, due process as envisaged under government orders dated 25-03-2008 and 12-02-2009 had ever been followed and the apprehension about law and order situation is being expressed merely on purported representation without having any basis. She refers to the report dated 23-03-2015 annexed as exhibit R-1 to the affidavit in reply filed