1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6554 OF 2009 Madhukar Ganpati Patil .. Petitioner Vs 1. The Collector of Kolhapur and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Veena Thadhani , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.M.Patne, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 22/09/2009 PC: 1. Heard Mrs Thadhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos 1 to 3. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.6.2009 by which the Collector, Kolhapur, has directed the petitioner to close down his liquor shop for a period of one year. The operative portion o the order reads thus: “10. Hence, I Laxmikant Deshmukh, Collector of Kolhapur under the powers vested in me by Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 and T 2 Section 142 of the Bombay Prohibition Act,1949 hereby order that the CL III licence standing in the name of Mr Madhukar Ganpati Patil at Panchgaon, Taluka-Karvir, Dist Kolhapur is hereby closed down under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act,1949, for a period of one year or till such time as the said licence is shifted to some other place, whichever is less, and during the period the shop should remain closed. This Order will come into effect from 22.6.2009.” 3. Mr Thadani, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that this order amounts to permanent closure of the liquor shop, which is not permissible under rule 25 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973, unless there is a resolution passed by the Gram Sabha seeking closure of the shop. She submitted, since in the present case there is no such resolution passed by the Gram Sabha the impugned order deserves to be set aside. In my opinion, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is devoid of any merits. The impugned order is not an order by which the shop of the petitioner has been closed permanently. It is clear that in exercise of the powers under rule 27 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules,1973 the Collector has directed the petitioner to close down his shop for a period of one year only with an option to shift and run the shop even during the period of one year. The impugned order, in my opinion, is not under rule 25; as tried to be submitted by the learned counsel for the 3 petitioner. In the circumstances, this petition fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)