Balaji Dadarao Sawale vs State Of Mah.& Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 5159 Bom

                                                           WP/2816/1994
                                     1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2816 OF 1994

 Balaji Dadarao Sawale,
 Age major, Occ. Agriculture
 and Business, R/o Dhanaj (Kh.)
 Tq. Khandar, Dist. Nanded.                          ..Petitioner

 Versus

 1. The State of Maharashtra
 Through its Secretary,
 Home Department, Mantralaya,
 Mumbai 32.

 2. The Collector, Nanded.

 3. The Superintendent,
 State Excise, Nanded.                               ..Respondents

                                    ...
                Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Talekar S.B. 
                 AGP for Respondents: Shri Tambe S.K.
                                    ...

                    CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: July 27, 2017 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective sides for quite

some time.

2. I have gone through the petition paper book and the ten

grounds raised by the petitioner. It is stated in the petition that

the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of

WP/2816/1994

the Constitution of India has been violated. An opportunity of

hearing was not given to the petitioner to face the resolution

passed by the Gram Sabha of village Barbada on 26.1.1994.

About 200 residents wanted the petitioner to sell country liquor

in the said village. Hence the impugned order dated 15.8.1994

cancelling the Cl-III license No.149/94-95 is illegal.

3. It appears that there is a serious objection to the

continuance of the vending of the country liquor in the shop

operated by the petitioner in village Barbada. After considering

the said objection and the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha

that the said shop should not be permitted to vend country

liquor, I do not find that the District Collector has committed any

error in issuing the impugned order.

4. This Court in the matter of S.N. Nilewar Vs. State of

Maharashtra [AIR 1993 Bom. 327], has concluded that Section

56 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 can be invoked for the

enforcement of the policy of prohibition enshrined under Article

47 of the Constitution of India. In a judgment dated 23.9.1980

passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.128 to 140 of 1990, it

was held that the action of cancellation of Cl-III license is in

accordance with the State policy to close down the country

WP/2816/1994

liquor shops at villages, which has passed resolutions. Such

policy is in the public interest and to avoid resentment amongst

the villagers.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in

view the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the

matter of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Balu and another [(2017) 2

SCC 281], whereby certain restrictions have been imposed on

continuing shops for vending liquor, the petitioner may be

permitted to apply for relocation and renewal of the Cl-III license

at a different place.

6. In the light of the said request, this petition is disposed off

without causing interference in the impugned order. By virtue of

the interim relief, granted by this Court on 8.9.1994, in the event

the petitioner still continues to hold the Cl-III license or has not

relocated his shop elsewhere, he would be at liberty to make an

application to the appropriate authority for continuance /

renewal of the Cl.- III license on the condition that he would

apply for a relocation of his shop at a place where there is no

opposition from the public at large. Such application shall be

filed within eight weeks from today.

WP/2816/1994

7. Rule is, therefore, discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d