(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 222 OF 2007 Shri Marwadi Vachanalaya (through its Secretary, Shri D.M. Agrawal, Aged : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. Latur), Main Road, Hanuman Chowk, Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through Principal Secretary, Home Department (Prohibition), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32). 2. The Collector, Latur. 3. M.M. Unchale, Aged : Major, Occupation : Service, working as Superintendent, State Excise, R/o. Latur. 4. Kiran s/o. Marutirao Saudagar, Aged : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. M.G. Road, Latur, District : Latur. .. Respondents. .......................... (2) Mrs. N.N. Gangwal (Jain), Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Respondent nos.3 and 4 served (Absent). .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 20TH JULY 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. The petitioner has made twofold prayer in the petition, firstly, for a direction to the respondent nos.1 and 2, to initiate an inquiry against the respondent no.3 for the gross misconduct and, secondly, for quashing the impugned order dated 10th October 2006 passed by the respondent no.3. 2. Mrs. N.N. Gangwal (Jain), learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is only the Collector who has an authority to grant shifting of licence. She submits that the licence in the present case has been shifted at the instance of respondent no.3, which is without jurisdiction. She relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vikrama Shama Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2006(5) Supreme 704), in support of the contention that the distance of 75 metres from the place of religious worship, to the premises where the liquor licence is run, is mandatory. (3) 3. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, though we have put a query to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the petition is in the nature of public interest litigation, she has stated that it is not in the nature of public interest litigation. As such, we are afraid, as to whether this Bench, which is not assigned with the matters pertaining to public interest litigation, can entertain the present petition, in so far as prayer "A" is concerned. Since this is not a public interest litigation, even according to the petitioner, such a prayer cannot be granted in the present petition. 4. In so far as second prayer is concerned, from the perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the respondent no.3 has only implemented the order of shifting of the licence from Solapur District to Latur, which was granted by the State Government. In any case, the order of shifting has gone through a careful scrutiny by the Commissioner of Prohibition, who has considered the appeal filed by one Smt. Dongre, who is running shop just opposite to the premises of respondent no.4. The Commissioner of Prohibition, vide order dated 26th February 2007, has found that the distance between the religious place and shop of respondent no.4 was more than 200 metres, whereas shop of said Smt. Dongre and the respondent no.4 were situated only at a distance of 20 feet from each other. In this factual background, we do not find that the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vikrama Shama Shetty (supra) would be applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. It is pertinent to note that though the shop of said Smt. Dongre is run in the vicinity of the shop of respondent no.4 for more than last 34 years, no complaint has been made by the petitioner in respect of the said (4) shop. 6. In that view of the matter, no case is made for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( R.K. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp222