WINE SAMRAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to the order dtd. 22/8/2022 passed by the Collector, Yavatmal under Sec. 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short "the said Act "). By that order, it has been directed that on 27/8/2022, the liquor shops in the district would remain closed.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without complying with the requirements of Sec. 142(1) of the said Act. Under the said provisions, though the Collector is empowered to act in public interest and close any place where any intoxicant is sold, such action has to be undertaken on the basis of concrete material available. Merely on the premise that there is a likelihood of breach of law and order, such closure cannot be directed. The learned Counsel has relied on the decision in Parbhani Jilla Daru Vikreta Sanghatana Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2018(1) Mh.L.J. 343] to substantiate his contention. It is his submission that the impugned order does not refer to any material that could be relied upon for arriving at such a conclusion. It is thus prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.