1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5770 OF 2009 Akhand Maharashtra Daru Vikreta Sangh, through its General Secretary Shri Prakashchandra Kishanlal Jaiswal, Age : 60 years, Occu. Business, R/o Shree Raghuwansh, Behind Old Teligraph Office, Pila Bangla, Tq. & Dist. Jalna ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Home Department (Excise Department), Mantralaya, Mumbai-2 2. The Commissioner, State Excise, Mumbai 3. The State of Maharashtra For the Collectors of State Excise in The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr N.N. Jadhav, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 31st August 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs :- "(C) Appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued against the respondents, directing them to consider the representation at EXHIBIT A, filed by the petitioners. (D) The Collectors, State Excise in the respective Districts of Maharashtra, be directed not to close down the liquor shops in the village/town, Municipal Council or Corporation, as the case may be, without there being strict compliance of sub- clause (3) of the Bombay Prohibition (Closure of Licence on resolution by Gram Sabha or representation by voters of the ward of Municipal Council/Corporation) Order, 2008 (E) If any such decision is taken to close down the shop, after strict compliance of the Bombay Prohibition (Closure of Licence on resolution by Gram Sabha or representation 3 by voters of the ward of Municipal Council/Corporation) Order, 2008, in that case, alternate sites to run the shop at any other nearest place, may be allotted by granting necessary permission." 3. At the outset, Shri S.R. Barlinge, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that since the representation is pending, necessary orders be issued for directing the respondents to decide the said representation as the representation deals with the non-observance of the procedure by the respondents which has resulted in several illegal orders being passed. 4. In the light of the fact that the petitioner prays for directing the respondents to decide the representation at Exhibit "A" to the petition, we grant liberty to the petitioner to pray for the reliefs at prayer clause (D) and (E), in the event the representation is decided against the petitioner. Further, in case of any breach of the provisions, the individual license holders would obviously have a right to resort to such alternate remedies as are available in law for challenging the aforesaid orders. 5. We have heard Shri S.R. Barlinge, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.N. Jadhav, learned A.G.P., who accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3. Since the 4 representation is pending at Exhibit "A", we direct the respondents to decide the said representation, if pending, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today and to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. In respect of other reliefs, as stated above, liberty is granted to the petitioner. 6. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp5770.09 5