1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WP No.3458/2010 Mrs. Pushpa G. Ramwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28/9/2010 1] This Court has issued notice for final disposal. The matter was earlier before the Division Bench and the Division Bench has found that the matter needs to be looked into by learned Single Judge of this Court. 2] Short contention of Advocate Sharma that under Section 142(1) of Bombay Prohibition Act, the Collector cannot close down shop or indirectly cancel licence by ordering closer thereof in succession i. e. for continuous period. He points out that by first order, such closer was ordered for period of one month and by the separate order again it has been extended for further period of one month. The said period of one month is expiring today. He has pointed out if anybody has grievance regarding shop of the petitioner, the law prescribes procedure 2 therefor and nobody has taken recourse to that procedure. Hence continuous passing of such orders under Section 142(1) is contrary to law. 3] Advocate Ukey for respondent no.6 states that respondent no.6 is opposing continuation of shop at its present site. Respondent no.6 has taken recourse of law in the matter and steps being taken by her are in consonance with the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act. According to him, respondent no.6 is unnecessarily joined in the present matter and the complainants, who are agitating against shop of the petitioners are somebody else. 4] AGP Fulzele has relied upon reply as filed by respondents 3 and 4 before this Court. According to him, in view of the threats and agitation and other related problems, the Collector has found it necessary to pass appropriate orders under Section 142(1) of Bombay Prohibition Act. 5] It is not in dispute that the petitioner has got her shop at the cite which is duly approved by the Authority. It appears that residents of that area are opposing the shop. However, they have not taken recourse of Bombay Prohibition 3 (Closer of Licence on Resolution by Gram Sabha or representation of Municipal Council/Corporation) Order, 2008. There may be some other legal ways and means to redress such grievance. However, neither respondent no.6 nor respondents 1 to 5 before this Court have pointed out any such legal obstacle in the matter on continuation of shop at that place. 6] Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that some handful of people coming together by show of strength are trying to disturb otherwise legal activity of the petitioner. I find substance in his contention. 7] However, looking to the nature of controversy as today is the last day of closer of shop of the petitioner as per orders dated 27th August 2010, I find it appropriate to direct respondent no.3 - Collector to note the observations made by this Court and if there is no legal obstacles in continuation of shop of petitioner at site, the Collector shall permit the petitioner to restart his business in suit premises. 8] With the above observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of. 4 9] The petitioner shall appear before the Collector on 4th October, 2010 and the Collector shall pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law. 10] Steno copy is allowed. JUDGE Ambulkar.