SAKHARE BANDHU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge raised in the present Writ Petition is to the order dtd. 11/9/2023 passed by the Collector thereby declaring the area within Nagpur City to be a Dry Day on account of "Tanha Pola" Festival on 15/9/2023.

(2.) It is submitted by Shri S. P. Bodalkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the restriction imposed is not supported by the provisions of Sec. 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act of 1949'). There is no satisfaction recorded by the Collector before passing the said order. The reference made to various crimes in the first paragraph of the said order cannot support the order that has been passed declaring 15/9/2023 to be a dry day. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Writ Petition No.2928/2019 (Nitin S/o. Nagoraoji Mohod and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.), Writ Petition No.1567/2022 (Rahul S/o. Babanrao Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.), Writ Petition No.304/2023 (Shyam S/o. Kisanrao Mehetre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.) and Writ Petition No.2419/2023 (Nagpur Zilla Permit Room Association and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ane Anr.) to contend that the declaration as a dry day is unsustainable. It is therefore submitted that without the ingredients of Sec. 142(1) of the Act of 1949 being satisfied the impugned order has been passed. It is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Ms. N. P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the impugned order. She produced the record maintained by the Office of the Collector for perusal along with the relevant note sheet. She submits that the Collector was alive to the fact that reasons were required to be indicated while passing the order under Sec. 142(1) of the Act of 1949. All relevant aspects were taken into consideration for recording necessary satisfaction. It therefore could not be said that there was no material to pass the impugned order.