[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shradha Vilas Chavan vs The Collector Aurangabad And Others on 3 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:33939
1
246.25WP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
957 WRIT PETITION NO.246 OF 2025
SHRADHA VILAS CHAVAN
VERSUS
THE COLLECTOR AURANGABAD AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Gholap
AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.D.R.Korade
Advocate for Respondent no.4 : Mr.S.P.Koli h/f.
Mr.Akshaykumar Mete
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 03.12.2025
P.C. :
1] The application of the petitioner for grant of FL-
III license was rejected by the Collector by order dated
18.06.2024. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred
Appeal No.258/2024 before the Commissioner for State
Excise at Mumbai. By order dated 09.08.2024, the
Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by the
petitioner, thereby granted FL-III license in favour of the
petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 i.e. Indraprastha
Seva Bhavi Sanstha has preferred revision before the State,
challenging the order dated 09.08.2024 granting license to
246.25WP
the petitioner. Revision is pending before the State. During
pendency of the revision, the respondent applied to the
Collector for exercise of powers under Section 142 of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 seeking transfer and
closure of the place where intoxicant is sold. While
considering the application of the respondent no.4, the
Collector - respondent no.1, by order dated 1 st January,
2025, has directed the petitioner to close the establishment
until it is transferred to some other place on account of
various complaints and opposition to run the establishment
in the said premises. Against the said order, the present writ
petition is filed.
2] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has valid licence and that challenge to
the grant of licence is pending before the State. He further
submits that power under Section 142 of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act cannot be exercised for transfer or closure of
the establishment. He further submits that the power of
Collector to close the establishment under Section 142 of
246.25WP
the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is exercised only if the
Collector is of opinion that it is in the interest of public
peace to close any place in which any intoxicant or hemp is
sold and the power is limited to close such place at such
time or for such period as may be specified in the order. The
learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
S.K.Restaurant and Bar, Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another reported in 2023 DGLS (Bom.) 3274
particularly at para no.15 wherein in identical fact situation,
it is held that the Collector in exercise of powers under
Section 142 of the Act cannot permanently close the
establishment till the license is shifted.
3] Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.4 submits that the Collector can exercise the
powers under Section 142 of the Maharashtra Prohibition
Act if the Collector is of opinion that there is likelihood to
breach of peace. He further submits that the licence granted
in favour of the petitioner is very close to the residential
246.25WP
area and that they have filed revision before the State,
challenging grant of licence to the petitioner. He further
submits that the Collector has directed to close the
establishment in view of the fact that the premises are
situated very close to the residential area and considering
the possibility of law and order situation, the Collector has
closed the establishment. The learned counsel for the
respondent no.4 relies upon the full bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Harpritsingh Bhupindersingh Hora and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in
2024 DGLS (Bom.) 3801 particularly paras 30 and 31 and
submits that under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the
said Act, an independent power has been conferred on the
Collector to close any place in which any intoxicant or hemp
is sold if the Collector is of the opinion that the same is in
the interest of public peace. It is further observed that the
Collector can exercise the power when under a
circumstance he is of the opinion that the interest of public
peace requires the closure of any place where intoxicant or
hemp is sold, and secondly, the mode and manner of
246.25WP
exercising the power by issuing an order in writing to the
person holding a license to keep such a place closed.
4] Having considered the rival submissions. The
judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent
no.4 particularly deals with the question whether the power
of the Collector under Section 142 (1) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, 1949 to close any place in which any
intoxicant or hemp is sold. Whether the Collector can close
only one establishment or has power to pass order to close
establishments in the entire District or part of the District.
The question has been answered by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Harpritsingh Bhupindersingh Hora and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in
2024 DGLS (Bom.) 3801 in para no.35, which reads as
under :
35. Thus, we answer the question referred for our
determination by summarising our conclusions as under:
(a) The Collector, in exercising power under sub-section
(1) of Section 142, is empowered to issue directions to one
'person' or 'persons', but the requirement is to form an opinion
that such closure is in the interest of public peace, and the
order has to 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 is sold.
246.25WP
(b) There are no restrictions to 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 is sold.
(c) Thus, in a given case, the directions issued by the
Collector can be for the closure of 'one place' or more than
one place, depending upon the opinion of the Collector that it
is in the interest of public peace to close 'any place or places
in which any intoxicant or hemp is sold'.
(d) Therefore, the word 'any place' interpreted by the
Division Bench in the judgment under reference cannot be
read to mean that there is 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'
cannot be read independently of the words 'where the
intoxicant or hemp is sold'.
(e) 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.
(f) Thus, the powers conferred upon the Collector under
sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the said Act are not
restricted to one place, provided the Collector forms an
opinion that it is in the public interest to keep the 'place' or
'places' closed 'where' the intoxicant or hemp is sold and the
Collector issues the directions in writing to one person or
more than one person holding the license for sale of such
intoxicant or hemp.
(g) We do not find that the interpretation made by the
Division Bench in the judgment under reference to the words
'any place' indicates any restrictions on the powers of the
Collector to issue directions to more than one person and to
close more than one place within the district under his
jurisdiction, provided the parameters as contemplated under
sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the said Act are satisfied as
recorded by us in the above clauses.
246.25WP
The aforesaid judgment does not specific deal
with the aspect of the period of such power or time frame
for exercising such power under Section 142 of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
5] The judgment relied by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in the case of S.K.Restaurant and Bar [supra]
specifically deal with this aspect wherein the Division Bench
has held that the establishment cannot be permanently
closed or till the license is shifted and it clearly falls foul of
the provisions of Section 142 of the Act. The said provision
neither empowers the District Collector to order shifting nor
to order permanent closure till the license is shifted.
Considering the judgment in the case of S.K.Restaurant and
Bar [supra] and having considered the final order passed,
the same is contra to the judgment in the case of
S.K.Restaurant and Bar [supra]. Considering the same, the
Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
01.01.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 is quashed and
set aside. However, if such occasion arises and there is need
246.25WP
to exercise powers under Section 142 of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, the Collector is not prohibited in exercising
such powers.
6] The liberty is also granted to the respondents to
seek decision on the revision pending before the Revisional
Authority expeditiously.
7] If such a prayer is made, the petitioner submits
that he would not seek unnecessary adjournment in the
revision pending before the Revisional Authority.
8] Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER]
JUDGE
DDC
