(1) 108.wp.7279.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7279 OF 2026 Sumit Shivraj Dhote Vs. The District Collector, Nagpur and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. P. Bodalkar, Advocate along with Mr. Parth Malviya, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Shamsi Haider, AGP for respondents/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 11/09/2026 1. Heard Mr. Bodalkar, learned counsel for petitioner. The petitioner seeks challenge to the impugned order dated 09.09.2026 issued by the respondent No.1 District Collector, Nagpur. The aforesaid order is on record at Page No.23 at Annexure – A. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the Collector, Nagpur by exercising his power under Section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1949”) has directed prohibition of sale of liquor in the entire Nagpur Rural. The aforesaid order, prima facie reveals that the Collector has not recorded any opinion thereby coming to a conclusion that it will be in the interest of public peace to close all the licensed premises in the entire Nagpur Rural. The Para 1 of the aforesaid order refers to the proposal submitted by respondent No.2 which refers to some offences registered in the year 2023-2024. However, the offences are more than two years old and nowhere it is reflected in the 2026:BHC-NAG:12079-DB (2) 108.wp.7279.2026 order that there is a likelihood that the aforesaid offences will be committed thereby causing disturbance to law and order. In view of the above, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 11.09.2026 at 11.30 a.m. 2. Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned AGP waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) At 11.30 a.m. 1. This Court has issued notice to the respondent No.1 District Collector, Nagpur so also the respondent No.2 the Superintendent of Police Nagpur Rural, Nagpur. While issuing notice to the aforesaid respondents, this Court has raised certain specific queries pointing out as to what response the respondents are expected to give before this Court. Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned AGP, who appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2, upon instructions, submits that the respondent No.1 District Collector, Nagpur has passed the impugned order dated 09.09.2026 relying upon the report submitted by the respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police Nagpur Rural. Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned AGP further submits that on the basis of such report, the respondent No.1 has come to a conclusion that the prohibition order is in the interest of public peace. Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned AGP also submits that the aforesaid prohibition is only for a day and hence no prejudice will be caused to anybody. (3) 108.wp.7279.2026 2. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. We are of the considered opinion that the reasons given by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for justifying the impugned order dated 09.09.2026 are not only in violation of the statute i.e. Section 142(1) of the Act of 1949, but also in violation of the principles as settled by this Court in catena of decisions. The learned AGP submits that the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order relying upon the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur Rural. On perusal of para 1 of the impugned order, it reveals that it refers to the police reports. In the year 2023 and 2024 there were certain offences registered in Police Station Parshivni, Police Station Mouda and Police Station Umred on the day of “Tanha Pola” and hence respondent No.1 has come to the conclusion that it is expedient in the interest of public peace that the prohibition order should be issued on the day of “Tanha Pola” in 2026. 4. We failed to understand as to how the offences which were registered in the year 2023 and 2024 gave an apprehension to the respondent Authorities that after a passages of three years now again such offences will be committed. It is pertinent to note here that offences were registered in few talukas of Nagpur district. In Nagpur district, there are total 12 talukas and for the aforesaid offences registered in the year 2023 and 2024 in only three talukas of Nagpur district, respondent No.1 has issued the prohibition order in the entire 12 talukas of Nagpur Rural. 5. The prohibition order shows that all the shops in Nagpur Rural will be closed on 11.09.2026. The Hon’ble Full (4) 108.wp.7279.2026 Bench of this Court in the case of Harpritsingh Bhupindersingh Hora and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2024(6) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 343 has specifically recorded that the power of the Collector is to issue directions by an order in writing, directing the licence holders to keep the place i.e. the shop closed where such intoxicant or hemp is sold. The Hon’ble Full Bench has directed that such directions have to be specific to the licence holders and not a general direction. The object of the Sub- Section (1) of Section 142 appears to maintain the public peace. Thus, the powers conferred upon the Collector under Sub-Section (1) of Section 142 of the aforesaid Act have to be exercised in the manner as prescribed by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court. 6. Further, the impugned order reveals that the respondent No.1 has only reproduced the contents of the report submitted by respondent No.2, however, Section 142(1) of the aforesaid Act, requires the respondent No.1 Collector to form opinion on the basis of the report submitted by the respondent No.2 and has to record the reasons while issuing such prohibition order explaining as to what are the circumstances on the basis of which such prohibition order is to be issued. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra in view of the previous judgments of this Court wherein the aforesaid aspect has been dealt in detail by this Court. This Court has expressed that the power granted under Sub-Section (1) of Section 142 of the aforesaid Act in ordering closure of a shop selling liquor or a permit room cannot be exercised at the fancy of the Collector, but, only if the Collector is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in interest of public peace. The opinion (5) 108.wp.7279.2026 that it is necessary so to do in the interest of public peace must be formed by the Collector himself and must be reflected in the order, which in our considered opinion is conspicuously absent in the impugned order. 7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the respondent No.1 Collector, Nagpur thereby prohibiting the sale of liquor (foreign/country) in the entire Nagpur Rural by way of general directions is unsustainable in the eyes of law in view of the provisions of Section 142(1) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the law as settled by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2419/2023 [Nagpur Zilla Permit Room Association through its President and others Vs. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary (State Excise), Mantralaya, Mumbai and another dated 13.04.2023 so also Writ Petition No.304/2023 [Shyam s/o Kisanrao Mehetre Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary (State Excise), Mantralaya, Mumbai and another and the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Harpritsingh Bhupindersingh Hora and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (supra) and accordingly, we proceed to pass following order: (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 09.09.2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) No order as to costs. (iv) Learned AGP to communicate the order of this Court immediately to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. (6) 108.wp.7279.2026 8. An authenticated copy of this order be given to the parties. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/09/2026 16:10:17