SHIVKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners involved in this Petition is that inspite of two clarifications issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, one on 11.07.2017, in the case of Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and another , and the second issued in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Balu and another , that the prohibition brought into force on sale of liquor from the outlets situated along and in certain proximity to the highways would not be applicable to the outlets situated in the municipal areas, and that the respective State Governments would also be at liberty to take a decision as to whether or not such prohibition could be applied to the outlets situated within the area of the local authority, and the State Government having issued a Circular in that regard, the respondent authorities are refusing to renew the CL-III liquor licenses of respective categories held by the petitioners.

(3.) Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate has placed his reliance upon a Circular dated 31.03.2018 and the clarification dated 12.04.2018. He submits that all the petitioners squarely fall within the parameter No.4 of the circular dated 31.03.2018 as clarified by communicated dated 12.04.2018. He submits that admittedly the shops of the petitioners are situated at the villages which fall within the notified areas of newly constituted Nagpur Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and since it is a Special Planning Authority in terms of Section 40 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short 'the Act of 1966'), it has, in exercise of its powers under Section 159 read with Section 159 (A) of the Act, 1966, prepared a Development Plan covering all the notified areas including the villages where shops of the petitioners are situated and that the Development Plan has also been duly sanctioned by the State Government. He also submits that with the coming into being of a Special Planning Authority having within its jurisdiction, the notified villages, including the villages where the shops of the petitioners are situated, there can be no individual and separate Development Plan which can be prepared by any other authority for the development of the these villages and which can be sanctioned by the State Government. Therefore, he submits that the respective cases of all the petitioners squarely fall within parameter No.4 of the Circular dated 31.03.2018 and, accordingly, the respondent authorities ought to have renewed their liquor licenses.