HC asks govt to pass liquor ban order on a case-by-case basis
Bombay High Court on Monday pulled up the Maharashtra government for passing a blanket order for shutting down hundreds of bars and restaurants within the 500 meters of State and National Highways. The HC has accordingly, directed the Secretary of the Public Works Department (Roads) and the State Excise Commissioner to hear the grievances of each shop owner and pass a detailed order with reasons.
A Division Bench presided over by Justice Shantanu Kemkar and Justice Mahesh Sonak head the petitions filed by liquor shop owners, major cities of Maharashtra. These liquor shop owners had challenged a common notice issued by the government, directing them to forthwith stop all their business.
This action of the government was purportedly in accordance to the judgement of the Supreme Court that banned the sale of liquor on National and State Highways. The government had also sealed their premises on the pretext that they are situated within 500 meters of State highway.
After hearing all the contentions, Justice Kemkar said, “It seems that the government’s decision to shut these shops is taken without considering the grievances or the contentions of the owners. The government cannot pass such a blanket order shutting all the shops.”
“We are of the view that the government has passed these orders by only taking in view the judgement of the Supreme Court,” Justice Kemkar said.
Meanwhile, the shop owners sought an interim stay on the execution of the government orders, so that they can conduct their business till the next date.
Refusing to accept their contention, Justice Sonak said, “We do understand that you have a right to livelihood but at the same time we cannot ignore the observations of the Supreme Court. The SC has in its judgement specifically made observations regarding the increase in the number of fatalities due to drunk driving. This aspect is also important as it indirectly means right to life.”
Senior counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar appearing for the shop owners had argued that his client’s establishments were neither situated on a State Highway nor on a National Highway.