Bombay High Court: In the present case, in view of the opinion expressed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12-04-2024, this Court was called upon to answer the question formulated for determination by a larger bench. The question was “whether the power of the Collector, under Section of the (‘the 1949 Act’), to close any place where any intoxicant or hemp is sold, would be confined to only one place, i.e., one shop or it would include the power to pass an order of closure of all places where intoxicant or hemp is sold in the entire district or parts of the district?”.
The 3-Judges Bench of A.S. Chandurkar, Gauri Godse*, and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., opined that the Collector, in exercising power under Section 142(1) of the 1949 Act was empowered to issue directions to one ‘person’ or ‘persons’, but the requirement was to form an opinion that such closure was in the interest of public peace, and the order must be in writing to the ‘person’ or ‘persons’ holding a license for the sale of intoxicant or hemp to close ‘any place’ or ‘places’ where the intoxicant or hemp was sold. Further, the direction issued by the Collector must be specific to the license holders and not a general direction.
Background
In the present case, three petitions were filed wherein separate orders passed by the District Collector to exercise the powers conferred under Section 142(1) of the 1949 Act were under challenge. The Collector vide order dated 08-04-2024 suspended the FL-I, FL-II, and FL-III, etc. licenses for one day, i.e., on 14-04-2024, on Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti. The said order was challenged by the license holders in the present petitions. The Collector had stated that to avoid any untoward incident on 14-04-2024, during the celebration of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti and to maintain law and order situation, it found it fit to exercise power under Section 142 of the 1949 Act to close the shops of the license holders on the said day.
Counsel for petitioners submitted that Section 142 of the 1949 Act was applicable only to the specific places where the liquor was sold. Thus, the Collector was not empowered to order the closure of all the retail outlets in the entire district. Further, the Collector’s order did not comply with Rule 9-A(2)(d) of the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Sale on Cash, Register of Sales, etc.) Rules, 1969 (‘the 1969 Rules’), which required at least seven days’ notice in the Official Gazette and a local newspaper before declaring a dry day. It was also stated that the orders passed by the Collector, in the exercise of the power conferred under Section 142 of the 1949 Act, amounted to declaring the day as a dry day for which only the State Government was empowered by following the procedure as prescribed for declaring the day as a dry day.
It was submitted by petitioners that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Parbhani Jilla Daru Vikreta Sanghatana v. State of Maharashtra, (‘Parbhani Jilla Daru Vikreta Sanghatana Case’) interpreting the word ‘place’ was the correct interpretation of the law and would not require any reconsideration. Whereas counsel for respondents submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Parbhani Jilla Daru Vikreta Sanghatna Case (supra) would require reconsideration in view of the relevant provisions of the 1949 Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that in the judgment under reference, that is, Parbhani Jilla Daru Vikreta Sanghatana Case (supra), the Division Bench dealt with an order passed by the Collector directing all the liquor shops in the district to be closed on the days of Mohorrum and Dasera. The Division Bench had observed that the Collector’s opinion for closure of the ‘shops where the intoxicant or hemp is sold’ could not extend to the ‘entire district’ and that the word ‘any place’ used in Section 142(1) could not be interpreted to include ‘entire district’. Thus, it appeared that the Division Bench interpreted the words ‘to close any place’ with reference to the order passed by the Collector to close all the shops in the entire district.
The Court stated that Section of the dealt with the closure of the place where an intoxicant or hemp was sold for a specified period, and the object was to maintain public peace. The Court stated that when the Collector was of the opinion that it was in the interest of public peace to close any place in which any intoxicant or hemp was sold, he was empowered to direct in writing to the persons holding a license for the sale of such intoxicant or hemp to close such place. The Court opined that it was necessary to note that the plural word ‘persons’ and the singular word ‘place’ was used in Section 142(1). Thus, the Collector was empowered to issue directions to one person or more than one person to close one place or more than one place, provided he formed an opinion that it was in the interest of public peace that ‘the place’ where the intoxicant or hemp was sold was required to be kept closed.
The Court opined that the word ‘any place’ interpreted by the Division Bench in the judgment under reference could not be read to mean that there was any restriction on the powers of the Collector to direct the closure of more than one shop in a district under his jurisdiction. But the words ‘any place’ could not be read independently of the words ‘where the intoxicant or hemp is sold’. The power of the Collector was thus, to issue directions by an order in writing, directing the license holders to keep the place, i.e., the shop closed where such intoxicant or hemp was sold. The directions must be specific to the license holders and not a general direction.
The Court also opined that object of Section 142(1) was to maintain public peace and thus, the Collector’s power under the said section were not restricted to one place, provided the Collector formed an opinion that it was in the public interest to keep the ‘place’ or ‘places’ closed ‘where’ the intoxicant or hemp was sold and the Collector issued the directions in writing to one person or more than one person holding the license for sale of such intoxicant or hemp.
The Court stated that the 1969 Rules and the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 (‘the 1973 Rules’) deal with the permissions granted for the sale of liquor in a licensed shop or premises and even Rule 27 of the 1973 Rules, which was referable to the powers under Section 149(1), provided for closure of the licensed shop.
The Court stated that the interpretation of the words ‘any place’ made by the Division Bench in the judgment under reference could not be read to mean that the Collector’s powers were restricted to only one place or one shop. The Court opined that though Sections 142(1) and 142(2) were mutually exclusive, the words ‘to close such place’ and ‘such place shall be closed’ used in the respective subsections were to be read with reference to ‘the place where intoxicant or hemp is sold’ and thus, both the sub-sections differ in the situation mentioned therein and the authority to exercise the power.
The Court concluded its determination of the question as under:
The Collector, in exercising power under Section 142(1) was empowered to issue directions to one ‘person’ or ‘persons’, but the requirement was to form an opinion that such closure was in the interest of public peace, and the order must be in writing to the ‘person’ or ‘persons’ holding a license for the sale of intoxicant or hemp to close ‘any place’ or ‘places’ where the intoxicant or hemp was sold.
There were no restrictions in issuing directions to more than one person; however, the directions issued to one or more than one person must be in the context of the closure of a ‘place’ or ‘places’ where the intoxicant or hemp was sold. Thus, in each case, the directions issued by the Collector could be for the closure of ‘one place’ or more than one place, depending upon the opinion of the Collector that it was in the interest of public peace to close ‘any place or places in which any intoxicant or hemp is sold’.
The word ‘any place’ interpreted by the Division Bench in the judgment under reference could not be read to mean that there was any restriction on the powers of the Collector to direct the closure of more than one shop in a district under his jurisdiction. However, the words ‘any place’ could not be read independently of the words ‘where the intoxicant or hemp is sold’.
The direction issued by the Collector must be specific to the license holders and not a general direction.
The Court directed that the writ petitions be placed before the Division Bench having the assignment as per the roster for decision on merits.
[Harpritsingh Bhupindersingh Hora v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition ST No. 10918 of 2024, decided on 30-09-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Gauri Godse
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Vikram S. Undre, Advocate
For the Respondents: Birendra B. Saraf, AG a/w P.P. Kakade, GP a/w/ S.D. Vyas, Addl GP a/w. M.M. Pabale, AGP a/w. Jay Sanklecha, B-Panel Counsel and Malaika Castellino
The post appeared first on .