Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DAILYLAW 2802 (BOM)

SONALI SUHAS DEULKAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE EXCISE AND OTHERS

PIL/25/2022 · 2026-04-30

Shri Ajit B Kadethankar, Smt Vibha Kankanwadi

Public Interest Litigationbody2022

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - pil25.22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 25 OF 2022 Sonali Suhas Deulkar ….Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents ….. Mr. V. S. Undre, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for the State. CORAM : SMT VIBHA KANKANWADI & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : 30th APRIL, 2026. PER COURT : 1. The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed for quashed and setting side the notification dated 31.03.2022 issued by the Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. By order dated 15.12.2025, we had issued notice to the Respondents and Respondent No. 2 was directed to file affidavit-in- reply by or before 09.01.2026. Till today, reply has not been filed. However, upon oral instructions, which were directed to be taken by the learned AGP, he submits that the said notification dated 31.03.2022 was in respect of draft rules or they were the draft rules which were alleged to have been passed by exercising powers under - 2 - pil25.22.odt Section 153 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The learned AGP, upon instructions, makes a specific statement that these rules have not been implemented and if at all, the Government wants to implement the same, it has to seek the necessary permission from the concerned Ministry or even may require to go before the floor. 3. Here, it is to be noted that the notification dated 31.03.2022 appears to be only the draft rules (izk#i fu;e) and the notification expressly states that the objections from the general public were invited. It appears that the State intends to see the response from the general public to the said notification and therefore, gave an opportunity to the general public to put forth their grievances. Those are the draft rules and have not taken the effect of legislation. 4. In view of this position, we dispose of the present petition with an opportunity to the Petitioner to approach this as and when further action arises. 5. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- directed to be deposited by the Petitioner by order dated 15.12.2025 be returned to him. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb