RATANLAL PRALHAD GINDODIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions against respondent nos. 1 and 2 to take action against respondent nos. 3 to 5 for having violated the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of India and for having illegally detained and confined him for a period of 5 hours, although the petitioner had not committed any offence and also for forcibly extracting Rs. 10,000/- from petitioner's wife for releasing the petitioner.

(2.) FEW facts, which are not in dispute, may be stated as under. The petitioner carries on business of retail sale of foreign and country liquor on the strength of licences issued to him by the Collector of Dhule, who is Head of State Excise Department for Dhule district, and all powers relating to licensing and controlling various licences vest in him. The licence for sale of foreign liquor issued to the petitioner is at Exh. 'a', whereas the licence for the retail sale of country liquor in sealed bottles is at Exh. 'b'. His licences were renewed from time to time and were valid upto 31st March, 1995. There are endorsements as regards renewal of the licences from time to time by the Collector of Dhule on petitioner's depositing the requisite licence fees. One of the conditions of the licences is that the licensee shall comply promptly with all lawful orders and directions issued from time to time by the Commissioner, Collector or the Superintendent or Inspector of Prohibition and Excise.

(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that he always brings an idol of Lord Ganpati to his shop and on the day of Ganpati immersion, after performing the pooja in the shop removed the Ganpati idol from the shop and takes it for immersion. In the year 1994 also the petitioner had kept a Ganpati idol in his shop and on18th September, 1994, he along with his other family members went to the shop to remove the Ganpati idol for immersion. The shop was closed on that day and no sale of foreign and country liquor was being effected. The petitioner opened half the shutter of the shop to remove the idol from inside the shop. At exactly the same moment i. e. at about10 O'clock in the morning, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 came to the shop and caught hold of the petitioner and told him that he was under arrest for opening the shop on a dry day when sale of liquor has been banned. The respondent nos. 3 to 5 then entered the shop and removed two full cases of country liquor containing 48 bottles each and one full box of King Fisher Beer and one quarter bottle of Gin from the shop and took the stock thus forcibly in their custody. The petitioner was shocked that the said Police Officers were taking away two boxes of country liquor, one box of beer and one loose bottle of liquor from an authorised outlet where there were hundreds of cases of liquor and beer in stock. The petitioner tried to question respondent nos. 3 to 5 about their illegal actions but they refused to answer and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences if he said anything. They then forcibly put him into the police jeep and took him to the police station and kept him in lock up. The petitioner protested against their action and told them that he had not committed any offence and that the police had no right to interfere in licenced premises. The petitioner also told them that if they had any allegations against him they should contact the State Excise Department for taking action and that they could not take action against him. The respondent nos. 3 to 5 however refused to listen to the petitioner and told him that he would be placed in lock up and released on the following day in court. Seeing the petitioner under arrest the petitioner's wife and other family members came to the police station and started requesting the respondent nos. 3 to 5 to release the petitioner since his presence was needed for completing the pooja etc. and taking the Ganpati idol for immersion. The respondent nos. 3 to 5 however, refused to listen to any of the requests and ultimately after great coaxing and begging they agreed to release the petitioner in return of a payment of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only ). IT is also contended by the petitioner that the respondent nos. 3 to 5 registered a case being Case No. 259/94 against the petitioner under the provisions of Section66 (1) (b) of the Act. The petitioner told the respondent nos. 3 to 5 that Section66 (1) (b) did not apply to him and in any event the offence under Section66 (1) (b) was a bailable offence and there was no provision in law for them to keep the petitioner in lock up for so many hours. However, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 refused to listen to the petitioner's protests and even refused to release him on bail.