Bombay High Court Imposes Cost of Rs 10K on Petitioner who Challenged Shifting of Country Liquor Shop

A Single Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court has recently imposed a cost of Rs. 10000 on a petitioner who filed a petition against the opening of a liquor club.

The High Court while dismissing the plea noted that the petitioner could not show how the fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated. The court said,
"It is seen that the Petition proceeds on the basis of the violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, Petitioner has not given any event or incident as to how his fundamental rights are violated."

The court said that the right of the owner of the country liquor club under article 19(1)(g) to carry on trade and business by following the due process of law is in fact hampered on the allegations of the petitioner.

The bench also noted that the entire documentary material i.e. Application, NOC, permissions, etc. enumerated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the owner of the liquor shop and was confirmed by the Collector of Nashik, Commissioner of State Excise, and the State of Maharashtra.

The plea had challenged the order of the Nashik District Collector allowing the shifting of the country liquor bar to new premises. The petitioner had challenged the order of the collector which was upheld by the State Excise Minister after which the petitioner approached the High Court.

Advocate Veena B Thandvani for the petitioner argued that the NOC from Peth Nagar Parishad was not obtained and there was a violation of the condition concerning distance from the national highway. She further informed the court that liquor was being sold in the residential area.

Advocate Santosh L Patil for the owner of the country liquor argued that the petitioner had no locus and that the petitioner had not challenged the report of distance from the national highway. He further submitted that the petitioner had not objected to shifting of country liquor shop and it was only after the license was granted the order was challenged.

Assistant Government Pleader informed the court that the inspection was done by the inspector and that conditions with respect to distances from certain areas were followed and that there were no educational or religious institutions near the shop.

The court found that the statutory authority had followed the process of shifting the country liquor shop. The order read,
"The Statutory Authority has confirmed on affidavit that the transfer application in respect of Respondent No 3 was thoroughly inquired into by Respondent No. 1 only after following the due process of law the same has been issued. Record also indicates that Respondent No. 3 has received N.A. Permission for Plot No. 284 in the year 1996 and copy of the same is produced on record"

The court then imposed a cost of Rs. 10 thousand on the petitioner and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount Kirtikar Law Library.

Case Title: Rahul Giridhar Pathade vs Collector of Nashik & Ors

Statue: Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949