BHAGWAN RAJARAM GHOLAP Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions filed before all the Benches of this Court in the State of Mahar-ashtra and impugning the State Govern-ment's decision to shift the country liquor shops beyond the village limits were heard by us from time to time. During the course of hearing a number of issues were high-lighted in support of the said challenge in-cluding the Government's failure to gazette the impugned decision as required under section 139 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The learned Counsel for the petition-ers had also invited our attention to the un-certainties and contradictory opinions which may arise while interpreting the term "Gavkus" by pointing out that these shops were required to be shifted beyond the "Gavkus" and unless the term "Gavkus" was defined by the State Government, the En-forcement Officers may misuse their discretions and harass the licensees.

(2.) Mr. Nitin Deshpande, the learned AGP had, therefore, sought time of about four weeks to take instructions from the State Government so as to consider the statistics/ data that may be available with the Com-missioner of State Excise, Maharashtra in response to his earlier correspondence and based on that a policy decision so as to make the impugned decision feasible and workable would be taken and before it is brought into force, it would be gazetted as required unde section 139 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. However, as per the letter dated 9/4/ 2010, received by Mr. Deshpande, State Gov-ernment would require about six months' pe-riod and the policy decision so taken earlier to shift these country liquor shops beyond the village boundaries will be implemented only after the entire procedure is followed and a fresh gazette notification will be published.

(3.) In all these petitions ad-interim stay orders were passed from time to time by dif-ferent Benches and as a result thereof the country liquor shops were not shifted beyond the village limits and they continue to oper-ate from the present places in the respective villages. Mr. Deshpande, the learned AGP, on instructions, states that the State Gov-ernment has no objection if interim stay or-ders are continued and made operative till the fresh gazette notification under section 139 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 is issued by the State Government. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have consented for such an arrangement and, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose off these petitions.