IN THREE writ petitions, not registered yet and having only Stamp Nos.-Harpritsingh Bhupindersingh Hora, Vijay Shankarlal Lalwani, Sacin Suryakant Belagade and Sanjay Marutrao Ingawale, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Justices Atul Chandurkar, Gauri Godse and Rajesh S Patil, has answered on September 30, 2024, a question referred to it, regarding the interpretation of section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The order of reference containing the question formulated by a larger bench reads thus: “Whether the power of the Collector, under section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, to close any place where any intoxicant or hemp is sold, would be confined to only one place, that is, or it would include the power to pass an order of closure of all places where intoxicant or hemp is sold in the entire district or parts of the District?” In all tree petitions, separate orders passed by the District Collector to exercise the powers under section 142(1) of the said Act are under challenge. The Collector has suspended the FL-1, FL-2ad FL-3, etc, licenses for one day, on April 14, 2024 on the occasion of Ambedkar Jayanti.

 

The said orders passed on April 8, 2024 are challenged by the License holders through these petitions. In all three orders, the Collector has opined that to avoid any untoward incident on April 14, 2024, during Ambedkar Jayanti celebrations,with a view to maintain law and order situation the Collector found it fit to exercise power under section 142 of the said Act to close the shops of the license holders on the day of Jayanti of Babasaheb Ambedkar. The HC found substance in the arguments made by the State Advocate General that section 142(1) of the said Act comprises two broad ingredients; firstly, the Collector can exercise the power when under a circumstance he is of the opinion that the interest of public peace requires the closure of any place where intoxicant or hemp is sold, and secondly, the mode and manner of exercising the power by issuing an order in writing to the person holding a license to keep such a place closed. According to the HC the Advocate General may be right in submitting that the said Act seeks to achieve twin objects of amending and consolidating the law relating to the promotion and enforcement of carrying into effect the policy of prohibition in the State by enacting the said Act is in furtherance of the directive principles referred to in Article 47of the Constitution of India. However, in the Court’s opinion the object of the section 142 of the said Act is not to perform the State’s duty as envisaged under Article 47 of the Constitution of India. The object of this section is to maintain public peace.

 

The said Act being social welfare legislation in furtherance of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the provisions of the said Act need to be construed in line with the colour of the content and context rather than literal import with due regard to the directive principles and bearing in mind social perspective in the interpretative process. However, to achieve the object of the said Act, the Collector cannot exercise the powers under section 142(1) of the said Act to issue general directions. The exercise of power by the Collector under section 142(1) must satisfy the parameters contemplated under the said sub-section, which refers to closing the ’place’ where intoxicant or hemp is sold.

 

The Division Bench in the Reference Order has expressed that sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 142 are mutually exclusive, the words, “to close such place” and ‘such place shall be closed ‘used in the respective sub-sections are to be read with reference to ‘the place where intoxicant or hemp is sold; Thus, the sub-sections differ in the situation mentioned therein and the authority to exercise the power. For example, under sub-section (1) only the Collector is empowered to issue directions when he forms an opinion that it is in the interest of public peace that a place be kept closed where an intoxicant or hemp is sold; whereas under sub-section (2) where a riot or unlawful assembly is imminent or takes place, the Executive Magistrate or Police Officer, whoever is present, can direct the closure of the place, where intoxicant or hemp is sold.

 

The sub-section (2) further provides that in the absence of Executive Magistrate or Police Officer, the person referred to in sub-section (1) shall himself close the place. The Full Bench has summarized its conclusions by way of answer to Question in the Reference Order as under: (a) The Collector is empowered under section 142(1)to issue directions to one ‘person’ or ‘persons’, but the requirement is to form an opinion that such closure is in the interest of public peace , and the order has to be in writing to the ’person’ or ‘persons’ holding a license for the sale of intoxicant or hemp to close ‘any place’ or ’places’ where the intoxicant or hemp is sold. (b) There are no restrictions to issuing directions to more than one person, however, the directions issued to one or more than one person must be in the context of the closure of a ‘place’ or ‘places’ where the intoxicant or hemp is sold. (c) Thus, in a given case, the directions issued by the Collector can be for the closure of ‘one place’or more than one place, depending upon the opinion of the Collector that it is in the interest of public peace to close ‘any place or places in which any intoxicant or hemp is sold’. (d)Therefore, the word ‘any place’ interpreted by the Division Bench in the judgment under reference cannot be read to mean that there is any restriction on the powers of the Collector to direct the closure of more than one shop in a district under his jurisdiction.

 

However, the words ’any place’ cannot be read independently of the words ‘where the intoxicant or hemp is sold’. (e) The power of the Collector under section 142(1) is thus to issue directions by an order in writing, directing License holders to keep the place or places-the shop or shops closed where such intoxicant or hemp is sold. Thus, the directions have to be specific to the licence holders and not a general direction. (f) Thus, the powers conferred upon the Collector under section 142(1) are not restricted to one place, provided the Collector forms an opinion that it is in the public interest to order closure of place or places, shop or shops. (g) In the opinion of the HC, the interpretation by the Division Bench in the judgment under Reference to the words ‘any place’ does not indicate any restriction on the powers of the Collector to issue directions under section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, provided that the parameters for that are satisfied. Now these petitions will be placed before the appropriate Court, with this “Opinion”.