Point of Law: It is an onerous obligation for an educational institution to devote itself in building a robust society by imparting creative education at the school level which ought not to be overlooked.

JUDGMENT:

1. Whether our educational institutions are so weak that they would fear that the students would get adversely affected, if there is a restaurant having a liquor licence in the vicinity of their schools, is an issue falling for consideration in this case. The discussion is quite intriguing.

2. Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 22 June, 2021 passed by the Principal Secretary, State Excise Department (for short, “the Revisional authority”) by which the revision application filed by the petitioners against an order dated 30 March, 2021 passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, allowing the appeal of respondent no.3, arising from an order dated 19 November 2019 passed by the learned Collector, Pune whereby the learned Collector had rejected an application filed by respondent no.2, for shifting of the FL-III licence to another premises.

3. Respondent no.3 is holding a FL-III licence (for short “a liquor licence”) which was initially granted to him for his hotel namely Hotel Moonlight, situated at Village Barav, Tal. Junnar, District – Pune. He applied for transfer of the said licence from Village Padali Barav Grampanchayat to the limits of Junnar Municipal Council i.e. C.T.S. No.5087, situated at Junnar, Tal.Junnar, District-Pune. By an order dated 19 November 2019 passed by the Collector, Pune, the application of respondent no.3 came to be rejected on the ground that such transfer of the liquor licence cannot be permitted considering the objections which were raised by the petitioners who were running a school in the vicinity of the place where the licence was intended to be transferred, and that granting such a transfer would lead to an impending law and order situation. Although the rejection was purely on the basis of an apprehension of some law and order situation, there are some significant observations as made by the Collector in that regard. The first observation is the comment on the enquiry which he had ordered on such application and the enquiry officer submitting a report dated 30 March 2019 after visiting the site in question. The report states that the distance between the main entrance of the petitioners’ educational institution and the place where the transfer of the licence has been sought was about 450 metres. He also observed that at the time when such a proposal for transfer was made, on the north-west side of the compound wall of the petitioners’ educational institution, no gate was noticed. However, he observed that when the inspection was undertaken on 27 August, 2019, it was noticed that a gate was installed on the north west side of the compound. He reported that even the distance between the said new gate and the premises of respondent no.3 was about 144 metres as also the aerial distance was about 95 sq. mtrs. The report further observed that at the distance of 375 sq. mtrs. from the main entrance of the petitioners’ educational institution, there already existed a hotel namely “Hotel Anand” and that hotel owner was also holding a similar licence for the last 10 to 12 years. The report also records that the petitioners’ educational institution had not raised any objection whatsoever in respect of the said hotel. The report records that considering the provisions of Rule 45(1)(c) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, a distance of 75 meters was required to be maintained, and as per the provisions of the said Rule, a licence could be granted to the owners of the restaurants even though the distance between the restaurant and the compound of the School or the religious institution was more than 75 meters. However, the Collector only on the objections as raised by the petitioners, other residents, and the member of the Parliament from Shirur Lok Sabha constituency, a local MLA and one Adivasi Shikshan Sanstha, Junnar, on the ground that there is a likelihood of a law and order problem, rejected the prayer of transfer of licence.

4. Respondent no.3 being aggrieved by the