1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION .1599 OF 2009 Shri Jagdish Topandas Amlani .. Petitioner. -versus The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents Mr D. B. Savant, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the state. CORAM: Smt. RANJANA DESAI & R. G. KETKAR, JJ DATED: 3rd July, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner’s case is that he is doing business in the name and style of M/s Sagar Wines at 206/210 Chandra Mahal, C.H. Street, Dhobitalao, Mumbai 400 002. 2 According to the petitioner on 15.5.2009 at 11.15 pm, respondent No.5 Shri Chandan Dattatray Gavde, Police Constable, Azad Maidan Police Station, entered his premises and asked for a copy of licence. The petitioner refused to hand over licence because according to the petitioner, he had no authority to ask for licence as the powers are vested in the State Excise authorities. The constable abused and threatened him that he will be put in police custody. In short, the petitioner’s grievance is that the constable was not authorized to visit his premises and it is only the State Excise authorities which can initiate such action. He relied upon the circulars Exhibit B, C, D annexed to the petition. 2. We have heard learned APP. We are informed by learned APP that the police constable visited the premises of the petitioner because as per the relevant rules and regulations, liquor shop must be closed at l0.30 pm. Since the petitioner’s liquor shop was open till 11.30 pm, the police constable visited it to enquire as to why it was open beyond l0.30 pm. Learned APP on instructions from 3 Shri.Sunil C. Kamble, API, Azad Maidan Police Station, has denied the allegations made against the constable. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. If the liquor shop has to be closed by l0.30 pm, it is not understood why it was kept open till ll.30 pm. We are informed that some closing operations were going on and therefore, the shop was open. We are not inclined to believe this submission. When the police constable visited the shop to find out as to why it was not closed by l0.30 pm, he was obstructed in performance of his duties and an effort was made to lock him in the premises. This is serious if it is true. At this stage, we do not want to express any opinion on the merits of rival contentions because a complaint u/s 353 of Indian Penal Code, filed by the respondent against the petitioner is subjudice. The truth or otherwise of the allegations will be decided by the trial court. We may only say that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. A blanket direction cannot be given restraining the police from 4 entering the petitioner’s premises in discharge of their duties. We, however, expect the police and other authorities to take action in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Smt. RANJANA DESAI, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)