GAJRAJSINGH PRAHLADSINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was heard along with Misc. Petition No. 280/91 (Viresh Chandra Patidar v. The State of M.P. The relief sought in both the cases as well as the grounds on which the relief was sought being similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. In Misc. Petition No. 239/91, the petitioners, who are residents of Vijay Nagar, a colony developed under its scheme No. 54 by the Indore Development Authority, have challenged opening of a foreign liquor shop in the locality. In Misc. Petition No. 280/91 the petitioners, who are residents of village Nagda, Tehsil Bednavar District Dhar, have challenged the opening of a foreign liquor shop in their village Nagda. Apart from the localities being urban and rural, there is no remarkable difference in the aforesaid two cases and the arguments have also been common. It would, therefore, be proper as also convenient to dispose of these two petitions together.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioners that the residents of the localities in which the shops are proposed to be opened are deadly against opening of such a shop and several representations had been made forewarning the respondents about the public opposition to opening of such a shop in their locality. It is contended that Advisory Committees have not been constituted in accordance with the provisions of S. 60 of the M.P. Excise Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder; that consultation with the Advisory committee before opening a shop was a mandatory requirement, which has not been fulfilled; that the procedure prescribed for publication of the intention to open a shop in a new locality inviting objections from the local population was not followed; that the requirement of rules for general application framed u/S. 62 of the Act were not followed inasmuch as the proposed shop would be near a place of worship, a primary or a middle school, a hospital, a labour colony, a petrol pump, National highway etc.

(3.) In the return filed in Misc. Petition No. 239/91, it has been admitted that the residents of the locality have been opposing opening of such a shop; that the advisory committee in its meeting has passed a resolution, and a recommendation to open shops in different parts of city of Indore, one of them has to be located in the Vijay Nagar locality. It is denied by the respondents that the opening of such a shop will disturb the peace of the area and will encourage antisocial elements in the area. It is also contended that part A of the rules of general applications would not apply to the case because the now shop will be run on a F.L. 1' licence, which does not permit consumption of liquor on the premises. Regarding procedural lapses also it is stated in the return that the prescribed procedure was followed and it was denied that there was any lapse on the part of the respondents in following the procedure prescribed under the rules. The contention of the respondents is that the rules framed under S. 62(e),(f) and (h) of the Act apply only to the shops and the premises on which liquor is permitted to be consumed. In the return filed in Misc. Petition No. 280/91 it has also been contended that there was already a country liquor shop in the locality and it has never been reported that it has caused any breach of public peace or tranquillity. Other allegations in Misc. Petition No. 280/91 have also been refuted in the return.