Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Jitendra Jain, A. S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Navi Mumbai Hotel Owners Association & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The District Collector & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6389 of 2024
Decided On : 03-05-2024
PROHIBITION - ELECTIONS - The court held that the prohibition on the sale of liquor during elections, as per Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, should only apply to polling areas and not the entire district. The Collector's order was modified to align with this provision, limiting the prohibition to specific times and areas relevant to the elections.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners challenged an order from the Collector imposing a prohibition on liquor licenses in Raigad District during parliamentary elections, arguing it exceeded the scope of Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector's order was overly broad, as Section 135-C only prohibits liquor sales in polling areas, not the entire district. The court emphasized that the prohibition should be limited to the specific polling areas and times.
Issues: Whether the Collector's order imposing a blanket prohibition on liquor sales in Raigad District during elections was excessive and inconsistent with Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that while Section 142 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act allows for the closure of places selling intoxicants, such powers must be exercised in accordance with Section 135-C, which restricts prohibitions to polling areas only.
Final Decision: The court modified the Collector's order to restrict the prohibition on liquor sales to specific times and areas relevant to the elections, making the rule absolute in those terms.
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of the parties.
2. The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 2nd April 2024 that has been issued by the Collector (State Excise). By the said order issued in exercise of powers under Section 142 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act of 1949'), a prohibition has been imposed on the operation of licenses issued under the Act of 1949, in view of the ensuing parliamentary elections. The grievance of the Petitioners is that insofar as the District of Raigad is concerned, there are two Lok Sabha constituencies of Maval and Raigad within the said District. In the Lok Sabha constituency-Maval, the Vidhan Sabha Constituencies of Panvel, Karjat and Uran are included. Insofar as Lok Sabha constituency-Raigad is concerned, Vidhan Sabha constituencies of Pen, Alibagh, Shrivardhan and Mahad are included.
3. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the impugned order seeks to restrict the operation of such licenses for the entire Raigad District ignoring the provisions of Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951'). Under the said provision, it is only in the polling area that the sale of liquor is prohibited. Since the impugned order is excessive in nature, it is submitted that its operation deserves to be restricted in terms of Section 135-C of the Act of 1951. Secondly, it is urged that the period for which the prohibition should apply has not been indicated in the impugned order. Referring to the order dated 29 th October 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.12201 of 2021 (Nanded Zilla Madya Vikretasanghatana, through its Authorised Signatory/CL III License Holder Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr), at the Aurangabad Bench, it is submitted that such prohibition ought to operate only till the time the polling is completed. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be modified accordingly.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader supported the impugned order and submitted that the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 142 of the Act of 1949, there is no reason to interfere with the said order.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, we find that the impugned order operates far beyond the area of what is contemplated under Section 135-C of the Act of 1951. The prohibition prescribed under Section 135-C is only for the polling area and not beyond it. It is true that Section 142 of the Act 1949 empowers the Collector to close a place where any intoxicant is sold but, the exercise of such power in the present situation ought to be guided by Section 135-C of the Act, 1951. This is for the reason that the power under Section 142 of the Act 1949 is being exercised in the present case only in view of the parliamentary elections. Similarly, this Court has already held in Nanded Zilha, Madya Vikretasanghatna (supra) that beyond the polling hours, such prohibition cannot operate.
6. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:-
(ii) Insofar as Maval Lok Sabha constituency is concerned, the prohibition for sale of liquor would operate in Vidhan Sabha Constituencies of Panvel, Karjat and Uran from 5:00 p.m. on 11.05.2024 till end of polling on 13.05.2024 and thereafter on 04.06.2024 till the declaration of results.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(iv) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
The Collector's power under Section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is broad, allowing closure of multiple places selling intoxicants for public peace.
The main legal point established is the requirement for the Collector to provide the outer limit for the period of closure/suspension of a liquor shop under Section 142 of the Act.
The Collector's authority under Sec. 142 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is limited to ordering temporary closure of licensed establishments, and does not extend to permanent closure or mandatory ....
The authority exercising administrative functions can review decisions without express enabling provisions; this does not apply to judicial or quasi-judicial powers.
The Principal Secretary, State Excise had no authority under the law to conduct the hearing for the cancellation of the licence, and the impugned order was an abuse of power. The impugned order also ....
Point of law : Owner of cinema house cannot challenge the setting up of a new cinema house because it does not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest, the business competitio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
