Bombay High Court Confirms Collector’s Authority to Order Closure of Liquor Shops Across Entire District

The Bombay High Court has clarified the broad scope of powers conferred on the Collector under Section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. In a significant ruling on September 30, 2024, the court determined that the Collector has the authority to close multiple liquor establishments across a district, provided it is done in the interest of public peace. The ruling addressed the question of whether the term "any place" under Section 142(1) is limited to individual establishments or includes the power to order closures affecting all shops in a district.

“Collector’s Power Under Section 142(1) Is Not Limited to One Shop” – Bombay High Court

The court rejected the interpretation that the Collector's power to close "any place" where intoxicants are sold applies only to specific shops. Instead, it held that the provision allows for a district-wide closure if necessary to preserve public order.

“The power conferred upon the Collector under Section 142(1) is not confined to a single place but extends to multiple places, provided it serves the interest of public peace,” the court observed.

The case arose from petitions filed by liquor license holders challenging the Collector’s order to close all liquor establishments on April 14, 2024, in celebration of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti. The petitioners argued that the closure of all outlets in the district violated procedural rules and exceeded the Collector’s powers under Section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. They claimed that only specific establishments could be closed, and that a district-wide “dry day” should be declared by the government, not the Collector.

The petitioners further contended that Rule 9-A(2)(d) of the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969, mandates at least seven days' notice before declaring a dry day, a procedure they argued was not followed.

The court disagreed with the petitioners, emphasizing the importance of maintaining public order during potentially sensitive events. It highlighted that Section 142(1) empowers the Collector to order the closure of any place selling intoxicants if deemed necessary to prevent unrest.

“The Collector is empowered to issue directions for the closure of ‘one place’ or ‘more than one place,’ depending on the situation and the need to maintain public peace,” the court ruled.

The court also noted that the Collector’s power is distinct from the government’s authority to declare dry days and that the actions taken in this case were not unreasonable or arbitrary.

The court rejected the petitioners’ procedural objections, including the argument that the closure amounted to a declaration of a dry day, which requires government approval. It ruled that Section 142(1) of the Act allows the Collector to act independently to safeguard public peace, and the procedural rules regarding dry days were not relevant to this particular exercise of power.

This decision reinforces the broad discretion granted to the Collector under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The court's interpretation expands the understanding of the Collector’s powers, allowing for broader district-wide closures during events with potential law and order concerns.

“The Collector’s actions must be aimed at maintaining public peace, and there is no restriction on ordering the closure of multiple establishments if public safety is at risk,” the court noted.

The Bombay High Court’s decision upholds the wide scope of the Collector’s powers under Section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, affirming that closures of multiple establishments are permissible when public peace is at stake. The petitions will now return to the Division Bench for further proceedings based on this interpretation.

Date of Decision: September 30, 2024

Harpritsingh Bhupindersingh Hora v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.