CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of aforementioned four writ petitions giving rise to similar question of law and facts. In CWP Nos.10712 & 10713 of 2007, the prayer is for quashing of order dated 10.07.2007, whereby the District Magistrate has passed an order of closure of liquor vends for a period of two months i.e. from 10.07.2007 to 09.09.2007, whereas in the other two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.19015 & 19018 of 2007, the prayer is for refund or adjust the proportionate amount of licence fee payable on account of closure of liquor vends by virtue of the order dated 10.07.2007.

(2.) The District Magistrate, Amritsar on 10.07.2007 has passed an order for closure of liquor vends from 10.07.2007 to 09.09.2007 apprehending that peace will be disturbed and there is possibility of riots, if the residents of the area start agitation. Challenge to the said order is, inter alia, on the ground that there were no sufficient material with the District Magistrate to pass an order of closure of liquor vends and that in exercise of judicial review, this Court can examine the legality and validity of the order passed. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P., 1981 AIR(SC) 2198 and that of Gauhati High Court Smt. Premoda Medhi & another Vs. Gauhati Roller Flour Mills Ltd. & another, 2003 CrLJ 122.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that in terms of Gulam Abbas case , an order passed by the District Magistrate is in exercise of the executive powers in performance of executive functions amenable to the writ jurisdiction, but this Court in exercise of judicial review cannot sit into the arm chair of the District Magistrate to return a finding that there is no likelihood of breach of peace. In fact, Para 26 of the said judgment shows that the order of the District Magistrate cannot be in relation to adjudication of disputes, titles or entitlements to rights. In the said case, the rival parties had litigation and the order passed by the District Magistrate was not to prevent apprehension of breach of peach. Nothing of that as sought has been done by the District Magistrate in the present case.