WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4603 OF 2026 PETITIONERS :- 1. Shubham Babulal Jaiswal, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot no. 16(A), Dream Land City, Ward no 1, Tq. Arni, Dist. Yavatmal. 2. Kamalnayan Laxmikant Jaiswal, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, R/o Ward no. 12, Tated Layout, Babulgaon, Dist Yavatmal. 3. Gaurav Anil Jaiswal, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Business, R/o Ward no 2, Near M.K. Gym, SL traders, Talav Lay out, Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. 4. Mrs. Sarika Santosh Jaiswal, Aged About 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o Ward no 3, at post Adgaon Khade, tq. Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, State Excise Department, through Commissioner, Excise Bhavan, Plot No.1450, Mahanarpalika Sabha Gruha Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. 2. The Collector, Yavatmal, Collector Office, Yavatmal. 3. The Chief Officer/ Authorized Election Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Mahagaon, Officer at Nagar Panchayat Office, Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal. 4. The Superintendent, State Excise 2026:BHC-NAG:7922 WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 2 Department, Yavatmal, Office at- State Excise Office, Yavatmal, Choti Gujri, Chapman Wadi, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. 5. The Inspector, State Excise Department, Pusad, Office at- Near Gunvantrao Deshmukh College, Kalra Road, Shrirampur area, Pusad, Maharashtra. 6. Tahsildar, Mahagaon, Tq. Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal. Office At- Mahagaon Teshil Office, Tq. Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal INTERVENORS /APPLICANTS IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1345 OF 2026 1. Sau. Chhaya Rajaram Narwade, Aged about 44 years, Occupation: Household, R/o.Ward No.2, Near Tata Indicom Tower, Mahagaon, Tah. Mahagaon, District Yavatmal. 2. Sau.Kavita W/o Vijay Neware, Aged about 46 years, Occupation: Household, R/o. Ward No.1, Mahagaon, Tah. Mahagaon, District- Yavatmal. 3. Jayashri W/o Sanjay Narwade Aged about 44 years, Occupation: legal practitioner R/o.In Front of Old Hanuman Mandir, Ward No.2, Mahagaon, Tah. Mahagaon, District- Yavatmal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. A. M. Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S. U. Nemade Advocate for respondent/caveator Ms. D. V. Sapkal, AGP for respondent Nos.2,4 to 6/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 3 CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17.06.2026 J U D G M E N T : CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1345 OF 2026 1) The present application is filed seeking intervention in the petition. The applicants have stated that impugned order directing closure of country liquor shop of the petitioners is passed pursuant to representation made by them and it is situated in the area where they reside and therefore, they are necessary parties to the petition. The learned advocate for the petitioners has not opposed the application. Application for intervention is, therefore, allowed. WRIT PETITION NO.4603 OF 2026. 2) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the respective parties. 3) The present petition is filed in order to challenge order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the Collector, Yavatmal directing closure of country liquor retail shop of the WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 4 petitioners which is run on the basis of License CL-III No.153. 4) The controversy in the present petition pertains to closure of country liquor shop of the petitioners as per the Bombay Prohibition (Closure of licence on Resolution by Gram Sabha or representation by Voters in the Ward of Municipal Council/Corporation). Hereinafter referred to as “the Order, 2008”. 5) Rule 4 of the Order, 2008 provides that in case where not less than 25% of women voters of total voters in any ward of Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat make a representation to Superintendent of State Excise demanding closure of a liquor shop situated in such ward, such application shall be verified by the Superintendent and if the representation is found to be in order, the Collector shall direct the Chief Officer to conduct a secret poll to determine as to whether the shop should be allowed to be run or ordered to be closed down. The provision contemplates that if, more than 50% of women voters cast vote in favour of closure of the liquor shop, the Collector shall pass an order directing closure of the liquor shop. WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 5 6) The shop in question is situated in Ward No.1 of Mahagaon, which is a Nagar Panchayat. As per the voters list, there are 145 female voters in the said ward. 42 female voters in the said ward had made a representation to respondent No.5 – Inspector, State Excise, demanding closure of the CL-3 shop of the petitioners. Respondent No.4 – Superintendent, State Excise directed respondent No.5 to conduct verification of signatures made on the said representation. Respondent No.5 informed respondent No.4 that the signatures were found to be genuine. Out of 145 female voters, 42 voters had signed the representation. It was, thus found that more than 25% of female voters had made representation for closure of the shop of the petitioners. 7) In view of the aforesaid, the respondent No.2 - Collector directed to conduct poll by secret ballot to decide as to whether the shop should be ordered to be closed down or not. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Collector, voting by secret ballot was conducted on 16.04.2026. The Chief Officer of Nagar Panchayat Mahagaon, accordingly furnished WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 6 report dated 16.04.2026 to respondent No.4 – Superintendent informing that 69 voters had cast their votes in favour of closure of the shop, whereas 7 voters cast their votes against closure of the shops. One vote was found to be invalid. 8) The respondent No.4- Superintendent forwarded a report to respondent No.2 – Collector based on the communication received from the Chief Officer, stating that less than 50% of voters had cast vote for closure of the shop and, therefore, the shop was not required to be closed. 9) On 17.04.2024, 13 women made a representation to the Collector stating that there were only 138 female voters in the ward. It is stated that out of 138 voters, 70 voters had cast vote in favour of closure of the shop and, as such, more than 50% of female voters had cast vote in favour of closure of the shop as a consequence of which an order for closure of shop should be passed. It is stated in the said representation that 5 voters whose names are included in the voters list had already expired and name of two voters had appeared twice. It was, therefore, stated that actual number WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 7 of voters in the ward was only 138 and not 145 voters. 10) Thereafter, on 23.04.2026, the Superintendent – respondent No.4 issued a communication to the Chief Officer calling upon him to furnish report as to whether five voters in the voters list had expired and names of two voters namely Mohsina and Rutuja Patange, appeared at two places. Respondent No.2- Collector also issued a communication dated 04.05.2026 to the Tahsildar seeking clarification with respect to the voters list. Respondent - No.2 Collector also issued communication dated 04.05.2026 to the Commissioner, State Excise, seeking extension of time to take decision in the matter. The Commissioner has granted extension of one and half months vide communication dated 21.05.2026. 11) The Tahsildar issued communication dated 06.05.2026 to the Collector stating that five voters, namely, Hafijabi Mahamadkha Pathan, Tabsum Nisar Beg, Pushpa Pankaj Runwal, Rajnibai Shivram Pande and Sukhiya Narayan Mehta, had expired. The report is based on death certificates of four voters and local inquiry with respect to WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 8 Sukhiya Mehta. Death certificate of Sukhiya Narayan Mehta is not available. The Tahsildar has also stated that names of three voters namely, Rutuja Patange, Mohsinabi and Jayashree Khandare were recorded twice. 12) Thereafter vide order dated 04.06.2026, respondent No.2- Collector passed an order for closure of the shop of the petitioners, holding that out of 137 voters, 69 voters had cast their votes in favour of closure of the shop and, as such, the shop was required to be closed in view of mandate of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Order (hereinafter referred to as “the Order, 2008”). 13) Mr. Ghare, learned Advocate for the petitioners argues that the impugned order is bad in law and unsustainable since admittedly there are 145 names in the voters list and the Collector has passed the impugned order discarding names of eight voters. Mr. Ghare contends that the Collector has no jurisdiction to take decision contrary to the result declared by the Chief Officer. He further contends that as per the report furnished by the Chief Officer, 69 of total 145 voters had cast votes in favour of closure of shop, which WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 9 is less than 50% and as such the shop could not be ordered to be closed. His contention is that the Collector does not have jurisdiction to discard name of any person which is included in the voters list. His second contention is that the names have been discarded without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He contends that out of the 5 voters, who have allegedly expired, death certificates with respect to four voters only were obtained by the authorities. As regards the fifth voter, namely Sukhiya Mehta, who has expired according to the report of Tahsildar, he contends that death certificate of the said lady is not found and that the conclusion regarding her death is recorded only on the basis of some local inquiry. The learned advocate draws attention to paragraph 13 of the petition and states that the petitioners have made a specific statement on oath that the said lady is alive and is presently residing at village Seriya, Udaipur, Rajasthan. With respect to the voters named ‘Mohsina” and “Pathan Mohsinabee Firoz’, his contention is that these two voters are two separate persons. He draws attention to Sr. Nos.64 and 181 where the names of these two voters are WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 10 recorded. The age of, ‘Pathan Mohsinabee Firoz’ is mentioned as 39 years whereas that of, ‘Mohsina’ is stated as 79 years. Moreover, name of husband of voter at Sr. No.64 is mentioned as Pathan Firoz whereas name of voter at Sr. No.181 is left blank. The learned advocate therefore contends that these two voters are separate individuals. Mr. Ghare, contends that if opportunity of hearing was granted this fact could have been brought to the notice of the Collector. 14) Mr. Ghare, further contends that one vote was found to be invalid by the Chief Officer. However, the Collector has treated the said vote as valid, which, is beyond his jurisdiction. 15) Mr. Ghare further contends that as per Rule 7(2), the voting time should be from 8:00 a.m to 2:00 p.m. and the counting must start on the same day at 4:00 p.m. in view of Rule 8(2). He further contends that the result of the poll is required to be declared by the Chief Officer after completion of counting of votes. 16) Per contra, Ms. D. V. Sapkal, learned AGP and Shri S. U. Nemade, learned advocate for intervenors, vehemently WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 11 argued that the petition should not be entertained in view of alternate remedy of filing appeal under Section 137 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. They further contend that under the scheme of the Order, 2008, there is no question of affording opportunity of hearing. They contend that the decision is required to be taken on the basis of counting of ballots in which question of affording any opportunity of hearing does not arise since the authorities are merely required to count the votes and take appropriate decision, based on the result of poll. They further contended that a clear finding is recorded that 69 out of 137 female voters have cast votes in favour of closure of shop which is more than 50% of the female voters and that there is no scope for interference with this finding of fact. It is contended that the shop is required to be closed in view of mandate of Rule 4 of the Order, 2008. The learned advocates further contends that the provisions of Rules 7(2) and 8(2) cannot be held to be mandatory and should be held to be the directory and that wish of the female voters in the ward must be respected. 17) As regards the contention that the Collector does WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 12 not have jurisdiction to take any independent decision, the contention is that the Collector, in fact, has not taken any decision in the matter and has merely excluded the names of deceased voters and has further taken into consideration names of three voters whose names were enrolled twice in the voters list to come to conclusion that the total number of female voters in the ward was only 137 as against 145 names actually recorded in the voters list. It is, therefore, contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 18) In reply to the preliminary objection with respect to alternate remedy of filing appeal, Mr. Ghare places reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirpool Corporation Ltd., Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, to contend that since the order is passed without jurisdiction and in breach of principles of natural justice, alternate remedy should not be viewed as a bar for entertaining the present petition. 19) Perusal of Rule 4 of the Order will demonstrate that decision for closure of shop is required to be taken on the WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 13 basis of votes cast by female voters of the ward in which the liquor shop is located. In the event, more than 50% women voters cast their votes in favour of closure of the shop, the Collector is bound to pass an order for closure of the shop. If the votes cast in favour of closure is not more than 50%, the Collector cannot order closure. It appears from the scheme of the order that, since decision is required to be taken on the basis of outcome of poll, there is no provision in the order for affording opportunity of hearing. 20) If the collector were to take a decision simply based on outcome of the poll, the contention that decision has to be taken without affording opportunity of hearing could have been accepted. However, in the case at hand, the Collector has arrived at a conclusion that more than 50% of female voters have cast votes for closure of the shop by arriving at a conclusion that there are only 137 female voters in the ward as against 145 names which are recorded in the voters list. The Collector has arrived at a conclusion that 5 voters have expired and names of three voters have appeared twice in the voters list. This finding that there are 137 female voters as WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 14 against 145 names recorded in the voters list ought not to have been arrived at without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 21) It is well settled proposition of law that unless scheme of a statute expressly excludes applicability of principles of natural justice, every decision, be it judicial, quasi judicial or administrative, if it affects any rights of a person, should not be taken without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conclusion that there are 137 female voters in the ward as against 145 names, should not have been arrived at without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 22) Opportunity of hearing in the present case would not be an empty formality. The learned advocate for the petitioners has rightly pointed out that the voters at Sr. Nos.64 and 181 namely, ‘Pathan Mohsinabee Firoz’ and ‘Mohsina’, prima facie appear to be two separate persons, since the name of husband of voter at Sr. No.64 is recorded as Pathan Firoz and name of husband of voter at Sr. No.181 is WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 15 left blank and further the age of voter at Sr. No.64 is mentioned as 39 years, as against the age of voter at Sr. No.181 which is 79 years. The petitioners have also made a positive statement with respect to voter at Sr. No.205 that she has not expired and is presently residing in village Seriya, Udaipur, Rajasthan. The authorities could not obtain death certificate of this voter at Sr. No.205. Opinion that she has expired is recorded only on the basis of some local enquiry. 23) If two names are added, the total number of female voters will be 139. The Collector has held that 69 female voters have cast vote in favour of closure of the shop, which will be less than 50% of 139 female voters if the names of voters at Sr. No.205, 84 and 181 are taken into consideration. Even if the total number of voters is taken as 138, still 69 votes cast in favour of closure of shop will be 50% and not more than 50%. 24) Answer to the preliminary objection with respect to alternate remedy of filing appeal depends upon facts of the case and therefore reasons dealing with the preliminary objection are recorded after dealing with the merits of the WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 16 petition. 25) It is true that the impugned order can be assailed by filing an appeal under Section 137 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. Normally, this Court would not have entertained the petition in view of alternate remedy of filing appeal. 26) In the case of Whirpool Corporation Ltd., (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that bar of alternate remedy should not deter a Court from entertaining a petition in cases where the order impugned is passed without jurisdiction or in breach of principles of natural justice or results in violation of fundamental rights. 27) As is held above, the impugned order is passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Although, the Rule does not contemplate opportunity of hearing, since the decision is required to be taken on the basis of outcome of votes cast, in the case at hand, the Collector has passed an order deleting certain names from the voters list to arrive at a conclusion that more than 50% of voters have cast votes in favour of closure of the shop of the WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 17 petitioners. This decision for exclusion of names could not have been taken without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 28) This Court is of the opinion that, failure to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners has caused prejudice to them in the facts of the present case, since death certificate of one of the voters could not be found by the authorities and the petitioners have made a statement on oath with respect to place of residents of the said voter and prima facie the voters at Sr. Nos.64 and 181 appear to be two separate persons. 29) In the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that orders passed in breach of principles of natural justice results in arbitrariness. It is held that arbitrariness is the same as discrimination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that arbitrariness in a decision making process results in violation of fundamental right under Article 14. Relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard are extracted herein-below:- WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 18 "Violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of the State action, it is a violation of Article 14, therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a viola- tion of Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The prin-ciples of natural justice, however, apply not only to the legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of 'State' in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the prin-ciples of natural justice require that it must decide such a matter fairly and impartially.” 30) Although right to carry on business in liquor is not recognised as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, it is well settled that right to equality before law and equal protection of laws which is guaranteed under Article 14 is available to persons who are engaged liquor businesses. In this regard it will be profitable WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 19 to refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gwalior Distilleries Private Limited Vs. State of Mahdya Pradesh and ors., reported in 2020 12 SCC 690 , para 9 of the said judgment reads as under:- “9.This Court in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal has held that no one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of 9 manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. It cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will. It must comply with the equality clause while granting the exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor. The appellant's request for grant of a CS-1 licence requires to be considered strictly in accordance with law.” 31) The said case deals with application for issuance of liquor license. What applies to a case of consideration of application for grant of license must apply with greater force to a case of directions to close a liquor shop run on the basis WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 20 of a valid license. 32) Since the impugned order is based on a decision to delete certain names from the voter list and the said decision is taken without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned order must be held to be arbitrary and thereby resulting in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 33) The preliminary objection with respect to alternate remedy is therefore liable to be rejected in the light of ratio of Whirpool (supra) on the ground that the foundation of the impugned order is a decision which is arrived at in utter disregard to principles of natural justice resulting in violation of Article 14. 34) In view of the reasons recorded above, in the considered opinion of this Court, order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the Collector directing closure of country liquor shop of the petitioners is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Collector is directed to decide the matter afresh. The Collector must grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before arriving at a conclusion as to WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 21 whether the total number of female voters should be taken at 145 or there should be any deletion of names from the list of voters as has been done by him. The Collector should also consider the contention of the petitioners with respect to non-compliance with Rules 7(2) and 8(2) and also the contention with respect to the scope of his jurisdiction while passing order under Rule 4 of the Order, 2008. Similarly, opportunity of hearing should also be granted to the intervenors. If found necessary, opportunity to lead evidence may also be granted. The Collector should also decide as to whether the vote cast by marking thumb impression should be treated as valid or invalid. 35) In the peculiar facts of the present case, where the order impugned is being set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing before deleting certain names from the voter list and the matter is directed to be heard within a stipulated time frame, as also having regard to the fact that 69 voters have cast vote in favour of closure of shop, it is directed that the shop shall remain closed till the matter is decided afresh by the WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 22 Collector. Further course shall be adopted in accordance with order to be passed by the Collector. 36) The observations in the judgment are only for directing the Collector to hear the parties and decide the matter afresh. The Collector should decide the issues involved independently, without being influenced by observations made in the order. 37) Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed in the following terms:- I. Order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the Collector, Yavatmal in Case No.CLR112025/319/A1/839 directing closure of business of country liquor shop of the petitioners run on the basis of license CL-III No.153 is quashed and set aside. II. The Collector, Yavatmal is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. WP 4603 OF 2026.odt 23 III. Parties to the petition, including intervenors to appear before the Collector on 01.07.2026 at 11:00 A.M., for which separate notice will not be issued. IV. The Collector is directed to decide the matter afresh as early as possible and, in any case, before 15.08.2026. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) T αɳɱαყ...