1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3202 OF 2011 (Shri Anandrao s/o Jagannathrao Gaydhane vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. ----------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 25, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 2/7/2011 passed by the Collector, Nagpur whereby CL-III licence held by the petitioner is suspended till 1/8/2011 in exercise of powers under Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It is pertinent to note that prior 2 to the said suspension, the Authorities had issued suspension orders on 20/4/2011 and 18/6/2011. The first order operated for thirty days and the second order for fifteen days. The impugned order dated 2/7/2011 is to operate for thirty days, which period is to come to an end on 1/8/2011. The petitioner has sought to rely upon the documents, which he has obtained by way of making an application under Right to Information Act, i.e. letter dated 2/7/2011 addressed by the Collector, Nagpur to the Sarpanch/ Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Narsala and the letter dated 20/4/2011 addressed by the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur to the President, Chandrabhaga Mahila Bahu-uddeshiya Seva Sanstha, Nagpur, Shri Jayant Dalvi, an Office Bearer of the Congress Committee, Nagpur and the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Narsala. By the first letter dated 2/7/2011, the Collector has informed the Sarpanch to take steps for closure of all liquor shops in the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, 3 Narsala within one month, as otherwise it would not be possible to take recourse to Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for suspension of the licence on the ground of law and order. By the second letter dated 20/4/2011, the Superintendent, State Excise has informed the Sarpanch that it would not be possible to take action against a particular CL-III licencee from time to time under the said provision. In the above petition, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondents wherein the aforesaid documents on which reliance is sought to be placed by the petitioner are not disputed. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the licence of the petitioner has been suspended in view of the agitation of the members of Chandrabhaga Mahila Bahu- uddeshiya Seva Sanstha in respect of the shop in question. It is pertinent to note that there are other two licences, which are operating in the vicinity of the petitioner's shop and no action has been 4 taken against them by taking recourse to Section 142(1) of the said Act and it appears that the petitioner has been chosen for special treatment. Prima facie this Court is not satisfied with the reasons given by the respondents for exercising power under Section 142(1) of the said Act and there seems to be merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is chosen for special treatment when no action has been taken against the other licencees. However, this Court does not deem it fit to interfere in view of the Collector having reached a subjective satisfaction as regards law and order situation that may arise, if action is not taken. Since both the Collector, Nagpur and Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur have in terms observed in their letters that it would not be possible to take action by taking recourse to the said provision from time to time, the Authorities would be well advised to consider the said aspect when a fresh complaint is received by them. 5 With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE khj