The necessity of concrete evidence and adherence to procedural requirements for issuing closure orders under the Mumbai Prohibition Act.

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

2. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner Association to challenge order passed on 18-09-2017 by respondent No. 3 under Sec. 142 (1) of Mumbai Prohibition Act (for short the said Act) issuing direction to keep all the liquor shops closed on 22-09-2017, 30-09-2017 and 1-10-2017.

3. Members of the Petitioner Association hold licences to sell liquor. They are operating in Parbhani district. The Association received a communication on 21-09-2017 from respondent No. 3 informing that a decision has been taken by him on the basis of letter from Superintendent of Police, Parbhani that all the licence holders of the district should keep their shops closed i.e. they shall not transacted any transaction on 21-09-2017, 30-09-2017 and 1-10-2017; which are the days on which Mohurrum starts, Dashehara and Mohurrum respectively. It has been submitted that the said order is illegal. No date has been mentioned on the order. No reason has been assigned for exercise of the said power. Every public festival will not crate law and order problem. Hence, the petition has been filed invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said order.

4. Heard learned Counsel Shri. V.S. Undre for Petitioner and learned G. P. Shri. Girase for respondent No. 1 to 5. Perused the documents on record. Matter is taken up for final disposal with consent of both the parties, taking into consideration the controversy involved. Rule. G. P. waives service for respondent No. 1 to 5.

5. It has been argued on behalf of Petitioner that the impugned order is illegal. There was no circumstance giving rise to law and order problem, which prompted respondent No. 5 to make application to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has not given any reason while issuing directions to close the shops on the said dates. Proper procedure has not been followed before issuance of said order. He pointed out the relevant provisions and submitted that the order cannot be sustained in law. He has placed reliance on the decision in Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2006 (6) All. M. R. 682 : 2007 (1) AIR (Bom R) 46; wherein Collector cannot pass any order under Sec. 142 of the said Act mechanically.

6. It has been pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the impugned order has been passed under Sec. 142 (1) of the said Act, after it was informed by respondent No. 5 that there is likelihood of riots. That apprehension was based on the experience in the past. The said order was published in the local news papers.

7. Sec. 142 (1) of the said Act prescribes that if the Collector is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the public peace to close any place in which any intoxicant or hemp is sold it shall be lawful for the Collector by an order in writing to the persons holding a licence for the sale of such intoxicant or hemp to require him to close such place at such time or for such period as may be specified in the order. According to respondents the order has been passed taking into consideration the apprehension about law and order situation on the said dates. This apprehension is stated to be based on the experience in the past. Such situation is not contemplated under Sec. 142 (1) of the said Act. It has been not been demonstrated that there was concrete information with respondent No. 5 about the riots on those festival days. Mere speculation on the basis of some experience in the past cannot prompt such action. Further, if consider the wordings in the above provision, we can see that the opinion of the Collector requiring for the closer of the shops where intoxicant or hemp is sold cannot extend to entire district. Word “any place” used in the section cannot be interpreted to include entire district. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the reason for passing the impugned ord