ORAL JUDGMENT :- By these two petitions, the petitioners viz. Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association and Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association challenge the circular dated 4th April, 2006 issued by the Commissioner, State Excise Department to all Collectors in the State requiring them to pass orders under section 142 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') to close all licensed shops selling foreign and Indian liquor. The petitioner in Petition No. 1030 of 2006 also challenges the order dated 5th April, 2006 issued by the Collector, Mumbai City purportingly under section 142 of the Bombay Prohibition Act directing: all toddy, country liquor and foreign liquor shops shall remain closed on 6th April, 2006 on account of Ram Navmi. 2. The members of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1029 of 2006, the Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association, hold vendors licences granted to them under section 34 of the Act. By the said licences, the licenced vendors are allowed to sell foreign liquor in sealed bottles, subject to the terms and conditions of the licence. The members of petitioner in W.P. No. 1030 of 2006, the Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association, hold hotel licences which permit them to sell and serve for consumption on the licenced premises (permit rooms) foreign liquor to a holder of permit in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of the licence. The petitioners are accordingly lawfully carrying on the business of sale of liquor to the permit holders and no breach of condition of licence is alleged against the petitioners or any of their members. 3. On 4th April, 2006, the Commissioner of State Excise issued a circular addressed to all District Collectors directing them that they should in exercise their powers under section 142(1) of the Act order that all shops selling toddy, country and foreign liquor should be kept closed on 6th April, 2006 on the occasion of Ram Navmi. In pursuance of the said circular, the District Collectors of all districts in the State of Maharashtra issued orders on 5th April, 2006 purportingly under section 142 of the Act directing that all shops selling toddy, country liquor and foreign liquor as well as all permit rooms should be kept closed on 6th April, 2006 on account of Ram Navmi. In pursuance of the said circular, the District Collectors of all districts in the State of Maharashtra issued orders on 5th April, 2006 purportingly under section 142 of the Act directing that all shops selling toddy, country liquor and foreign liquor as well as all permit rooms should be kept closed on 6th April, 2006 on account of Ram Navmi. The circular dated 4th April, 2006 issued by the Commissioner as well as the order issued by the Collector, Mumbai in pursuance of the said circular are impugned in these petitions. 4. Since the order has been passed by the Collector, Mumbai in pursuance of the exercise of powers under section 142(1) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce the section 142 which reads as follows: 142(1) If the Collector is of opinion that it is in the interest of public peace to close any place in which any intoxicant or hemp is sold, it shall be lawful for the Collector by an order in writing to the persons holding a licence for the sale of such intoxicant or hemp to require him to close such place at such time or for such period as may be specified in the order. (2) If a riot or unlawful assembly is imminent, or takes place, it shall be lawful for any Executive Magistrate or Police Officer who is present to direct that such place shall be closed and kept closed for such period as he thinks fit, and in the absence of any Executive Magistrate or Police Officer the person referred to in sub-section (1) shall himself close such place. 5. Sub-section (1) of section 142 empowers the Collector by an order in writing issued to the persons holding a licence for sale of intoxicant or hemp to close such place at such time or-for such period as may be specified in the order, if the Collector is of the opinion that it is in the interest of public peace to close any place in which any intoxicant or hemp is sold. The power granted under subsection (1) of section 142 to order closure of a shop selling liquor or a permit room can be exercised not at the fancy of the Collector but only if the Collector is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interest of public peace. The power granted under subsection (1) of section 142 to order closure of a shop selling liquor or a permit room can be exercised not at the fancy of the Collector but only if the Collector is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interest of public peace. The opinion that it is necessary so to do in the interest of public peace must be formed by the Collector himself and not by somebody else. The Collector in the impugned order has stated in the impugned order that on account of the Ram Navmi festival to maintain law and order, it was necessary that the sale of liquor be kept closed. In my view, the words "to maintain law and order" have been used mechanically by the Collector without application of mind. This is clear on the face of the order itself. Firstly, in the title of the Order, the Collector has mentioned that he had read the circular of the Commissioner of State Excise dated 4th April, 2006. That circular contains an unequivocal direction to the Collector to exercise powers under section 142 of the Act on account of the importance of Ram Navmi. Importance of a festival day and maintenance of law and order and public peace are different things. Every public festival would not necessarily create a problem for law and order nor would result in breach of public peace. Festivals may occasion congestion of traffic or taking out of a peaceful procession: smooth orderly behaviour as is expected on a normal day may not happen. But that would not necessarily create a problem of law and order nor would affect public peace. Secondly, it must be noted that all Collectors in all districts in the State of Maharashtra passed similar orders on 5th April, 2006. It is inconceivable that all Collectors of all the districts in the State of Maharashtra would simultaneously form an opinion of a problem relating to maintenance of law and order and that too in each and every nook and comer of the State. It is inconceivable that all Collectors of all the districts in the State of Maharashtra would simultaneously form an opinion of a problem relating to maintenance of law and order and that too in each and every nook and comer of the State. It is to be noted that each of the order of the Collector is a general order applicable to the whole of the district under his control and not a particular area of the district wherein the Collector may on account of any special reasons be satisfied about problem of law and order or maintenance of public peace. All the collectors appear to have passed the orders on account of the impugned circular issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Thirdly, the order itself mentions that it was passed on account of Ram Navmi. This clearly indicates that the basic reason for passing of the order was Ram Navmi and not in the interest of public peace or problems relating to law and order. 6. More than half a century ago, in the early days of working of our Constitution, in Commissioner of Police vs. Govardhandas, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 , the Supreme Court has stated that when the power has been conferred on an officer of the government to grant or cancel a licence, the power can be exercised by that officer and no other person or authority can do it. In that case, Rule 250 of Rules of Licensing and Controlling of Theatres and other Places of Public Amusements in Bombay City (1914) conferred a power on Commissioner of the Police, in his absolute discretion, at any time to cancel or suspend any licence granted under the Rules. It was held that the powers so vested in the Commissioner must be exercised by him and not by the State Government and no other persons or authority can exercise the power. In the present case, power is conferred on the Collector under sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. That power must be exercised by him and upon his personal satisfaction that it is necessary to pass the order in the interest of public peace. It is his opinion about the public peace, and not the opinion of somebody else, not even the Commissioner of State Excise that matters. That power must be exercised by him and upon his personal satisfaction that it is necessary to pass the order in the interest of public peace. It is his opinion about the public peace, and not the opinion of somebody else, not even the Commissioner of State Excise that matters. The Commissioner of State Excise has no power to issue directions to the Collector requiring him to exercise the powers under section 142 of the Act. Commissioner of State Excise may be the superior officer but that does not give him an authority to issue a direction to all the Collectors to pass orders irrespective of their forming an opinion about the interest of public peace. 7. Reference may also be made to a decision of this Court in Maharashtra Wines Merchants Association vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1992 Bombay 3. Therein the issue was whether the order issued by the Collector of Mumbai in pursuance of a direction issued by the Election Commissioner to keep the wine shops closed was valid. Therein, this Court held that the order under section 142 of the Act is required to be passed by the Collector on the basis of his own assessment and not on the basis of the direction issued by the Government of Maharashtra who in its turn had thought that the election commission had imposed an embargo on sale of liquor for 12 days during the period of the election. This Court held that the Collector was not bound by the directions by the State Government and could not issue the orders merely on the directions of the State Government unless he himself formed an opinion that it was necessary to pass an order in the interest of public peace. 8. The impugned order has· been passed mechanically by the Collector of Bombay merely on the basis of the circular issued by the Commissioner of State Excise. Therefore, the order is required to be quashed and the circular issued by the Commissioner to all the Collectors who passed similar orders under section 142 of the Act also needs to be quashed. 9. Learned AGP for the State submits that by virtue of an interim order dated 5th April, 2006, the impugned orders were stayed and the liquor shops remained open on 6th April, 2006 and therefore no further orders are necessary in this petition. 9. Learned AGP for the State submits that by virtue of an interim order dated 5th April, 2006, the impugned orders were stayed and the liquor shops remained open on 6th April, 2006 and therefore no further orders are necessary in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that similar orders are passed every year on occasions of different festivals and, therefore, it is necessary to decide the petition and quash the circular and the order. Submission of counsel for the petitioners is accepted. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, impugned circular dated 4th April, 2006 issued by the Commissioner State Excise and the impugned order dated 5th April, 2006 issued by the Collector, Mumbai are quashed and set aside. The respondent shall pay costs of the petitioners which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- in each of the petition. Costs shall be paid within a period of six weeks. Order accordingly.