Bombay High Court: The present writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 2-4-2024 issued by the Collector (State Excise) in exercise of powers under Section of the (‘the 1949 Act’), whereby a prohibition was imposed on the operation of licenses issued under the , in view of the ensuing parliamentary elections. The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain, JJ., held that the order dated 2-4-2024 issued by the Collector was partly modified, insofar as the prohibition for sale of liquor in Raigad Lok Sabha constituency was concerned, the same would operate in the Vidhan Sabha Constituencies of Pen, Alibagh, Shrivardhan and Mahad; and insofar as Maval Lok Sabha constituency was concerned, the prohibition would operate in Vidhan Sabha Constituencies of Panvel, Karjat and Uran.
Petitioners’ grievance was that insofar as the District of Raigad was concerned, there were 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 were included and insofar as Lok Sabha constituency, Raigad was concerned, the Vidhan Sabha constituencies of Pen, Alibagh, Shrivardhan and Mahad were included.
Counsel for petitioners submitted that the impugned order seeks to restrict the operation of such licenses for the entire Raigad District ignoring the provisions of Section of the (‘the Act’). Under the said provision, it was only in the polling area that the sale of liquor was prohibited and since the impugned order was excessive in nature, its operation deserved to be restricted in terms of Section of the . It was also submitted that the period for which the prohibition should apply was not indicated in the impugned order.
Counsel for petitioners relied on the order dated 29-10-2021 passed in Nanded Zilla Madya Vikretasanghatana, through its Authorised Signatory/CL III License Holder v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.12201 of 2021 (‘Nanded Zilla Madya Vikretasanghatana Case’), wherein it was held that the prohibition ought to operate only till the time the polling was completed. Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned order deserved to be modified accordingly.
The Court opined that the impugned order operated far beyond what was contemplated under Section of the . The prohibition prescribed under Section 135-C was only for the polling area and not beyond it. It was true that Section of the empowered the Collector to close a place where any intoxicant was sold but, the exercise of such power in the present situation ought to be guided by Section of the . Thus, the power under Section of the was being exercised in the present case only in view of the parliamentary elections.
The Court relied on Nanded Zilla Madya Vikretasanghatana Case (supra), wherein this Court had held that beyond the polling hours, such prohibition could not operate. Thus, the Court held that:
The order dated 2-4-2024 issued by the Collector was partly modified, insofar as the prohibition for sale of liquor in Raigad Lok Sabha constituency was concerned, the same would operate in the Vidhan Sabha Constituencies of Pen, Alibagh, Shrivardhan and Mahad from 5:00 p.m. on 5-5-2024 till end of polling on 7-5-2024 and thereafter on 4-6-2024 till the declaration of results.
Insofar as Maval Lok Sabha constituency was concerned, the prohibition for sale of liquor would operate in Vidhan Sabha Constituencies of Panvel, Karjat and Uran from 5:00 p.m. on 11-5-2024 till end of polling on 13-5-2024 and thereafter on 4-6-2024 till the declaration of results.
[Navi Mumbai Hotel Owners Association v. Collector, Writ Petition No. 6389 of 2024, decided on 3-5-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: R. D. Soni along with Sujay Gawade, Advocate; Sumedha Dhopate, Advocate; Mudita Pawar, Advocate; Manasi Sawant and Rekha Keni i/b. Shree & Co.
For the Respondents: N. C. Walimbe, Addl. G. P. along with T. N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondent-State; R. R. Kole, Superintendent, State Excise Raigad
The post appeared first on .