Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 783 (MP)

Maa Chamunda Enterprises v. State of M. P.

2017-06-28

S.C.SHARMA, VIRENDER SINGH

body2017
ORDER 1. This petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved with the order dated 3.4.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by Collector (Excise), Ratlam. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm under Certificate of Registration which is also on record (Annexure P-1). The petitioner further stated that State Government has invited tenders and the petitioner was the highest bidder for FL-I License (Annexure P-2) and annual value of the shop is Rs.2,47,67,222/-. The petitioner firm has established the liquor shop upon an open plot situated at Amrit Sagar Road admeasuring 6950 sq.ft. and after spending the huge amount started the shop. Petitioner was required to established the shop within the prescribed area as approved by Excise Department after following the provisions of Rules of General application framed under section 62(e) (f) and (h) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915. It is further stated that some complaint was made at C.M. Helpline and on the basis of complaint received at C.M. Helpline, District Collector has passed the order dated 3.4.2017 directing the petitioner to shift the shop to any other locality within a period of 7 days. It has been further submitted that the impugned order(AnnexureP-3) has been passed by the Collector, Ratlam without authority of law and without jurisdiction, therefore, is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/State argued that Collector has exercised the powers conferred under section 24 of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 directing the petitioner to shift the shop in question. It is further stated that shop has been ordered to be shifted on the basis of complaint received (Annexure R-2, R-3 and R-4) and the Collector was competent enough to pass an order, hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. Undisputedly the State Government has taken a policy decision for auctioning the liquor shop for the year 2017-18 and petitioner being the highest bidder was granted FL-I license in the light of provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 and petitioner has established the liquor shop on the open plot obtained by him, on lease at Amrit Sagar Road. The said shop was established by the petitioner and on the next day the complaint was lodged by some Parshad of the Municipality and also on C.M. Helpline. The complaints are also on record. The Collector (Excise), Ratlam on the basis of complaints has passed the impugned order dated 3.4.2017 directing the petitioner for shifting the liquor shop under the provisions of section 24 of M.P. Excise Act, 1915. 6. Section 24 of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 reads as under :- "24. Closing of shops for the sake of public peace.— (1) The District Magistrate, by notice in writing to the licensee, may require, that any shops in which any intoxicant is sold shall be closed at such times or for such period as he may think necessary for the preservation of the public peace. (2) If a riot of unlawful assembly is apprehended or occurs in the vicinity of any shop, a Magistrate of any class, who is present, may require such shop to be kept closed for such period as the may think necessary: Provided that, when any such riot or unlawful assembly occurs, a licensee shall, in the absence of the Magistrate, close his shop without any order. (3) When any Magistrate issues an order under sub-section (2), the shall forthwith inform the Collector of his action and his reasons thereof." 7. As per the aforesaid statutory provisions of law, the District Magistrate, by notice in writing to the licensee, may require, that any shops in which any intoxicant is sold shall be closed at such times or for such period as he may think necessary for the preservation of the public peace. There is no evidence on record to show that on account of the existing liquor shop the public peace is at stake. Not only this, the shop was established under the notified area. This is one case where the Collector has acted upon the complaint made by Parshad dated 1.4.2017 and has passed the order directing the petitioner to shift the liquor shop within a period of two days after receiving the complaints. No material regarding public peace was brought on record and the provisions of section 24 of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 are not at all attracted. 8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Collector (Excise), Ratlam is bad in law. No material regarding public peace was brought on record and the provisions of section 24 of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 are not at all attracted. 8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Collector (Excise), Ratlam is bad in law. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby quashed accordingly. Consequently, petition is allowed