The Bombay High Court on Monday held that while collectors have the authority to issue orders for temporarily closing liquor shops in the interest of public peace under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, such orders must be specific and cannot be general directives [Harpritsingh Bhupindersingh Hora and Ors v.State of Maharashtra and anr].
The Court clarified that the collectors can even issue such closure orders to more than one shop in their jurisdiction, provided that the order is specific and tied to specific liquor license holders.
A Bench of Justices AS Chandurkar, Gauri Godse, and Rajesh S Patil made the clarification while addressing the extent of the collector's powers under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, in response to a reference seeking the same.
“The power of the Collector under sub-section (1) of Section 142 is thus to issue directions by an order in writing, directing the license holders to keep the place or places, i.e., the shop or shops, closed where such intoxicant or hemp is sold. Thus, the directions have to be specific to the license holders and not a general direction," the Court said.
This ruling arose from three petitions challenging the closure of liquor establishments ordered by the collectors of Pune, Satara, and Kolhapur on Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti.
The petitions contested the district collectors' directives mandating the suspension of all liquor sales across their respective districts on April 14, 2024.
The license holders argued that the collectors' sweeping orders exceeded the intended scope of Section 142 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, which allows closures only at specific places and not across multiple establishments indiscriminately.
The petitioners contended that Section 142 should apply only to specific locations, asserting that the Collector lacked the authority to impose a closure on all shops in a district.
They emphasized that closures on significant occasions like Ambedkar Jayanti violated established procedures for declaring a dry day, which require a seven-day notice in official gazettes or local newspapers. The petitioners maintained compliance with existing license conditions, which only mandate closure on specific designated days.
In contrast, the State, represented by the Advocate General Birendra Saraf, argued that the collector’s powers under Section 142(1) are broad and designed to protect public order.
The State maintained that the collector’s decision was made in light of potential law and order issues, asserting that the public interest justified the closure of multiple outlets due to previous disturbances during similar occasions. The Advocate General contended that the collector should have the flexibility to act swiftly in the interest of public safety.
Initially, a Division Bench, comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla on April 12, refused to grant interim relief to the petitioners and referred the matter to a larger bench for further examination.
In its final ruling, the larger Bench emphasized that while collectors can act in the public interest, their orders must clearly specify the affected locations. It clarified that the collector, under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, has the authority to issue written directions to one or more license holders to close specific places where intoxicants or hemp are sold, based on the necessity for public peace.
Importantly, there is no restriction on the number of places that can be ordered closed, as long as the directions are clearly tied to the specific license holders and the locations where these substances are sold, the Court said.
The collector's authority extends beyond a single location, provided there is a well-founded opinion that such closures are in the public interest, the Court observed. It added that the interpretation of "any place" in Section 142 allows for the closure of multiple establishments within a district, reinforcing the collector's broad powers when the necessary criteria are met.
Advocate Vikram S Undre appeared for all the petitioners
Advocate General Birendra B Saraf, along with Government Pleader PP Kakade, Additional Government Pleader SD Vyas, Additional Government Pleader MM Pabale, and Advocate Jay Sanklecha appeared for the State.
[Read Judgment]