Objection Not Invited From Local Residents, No Report From Higher Level Committee: MP High Court Restrains Liquor Shop From Conducting Business

Granting interim relief to the Petitioners, Justice Vishal Dhagat observed-

After consideration the submissions of both the parties, it is found that there is no report from High Level Committee. Objections were not invited from local people and Collector after considering the report has not passed orders granting permission to respondent No.5 to shift the shop. There is no risk to conduct business at reallocated place… Till next date of hearing, respondent No.5 is restrained to carry business from Dasilva Compound.

The case of the Petitioners was that the manner in which the permission was granted to the Respondent/Caveator for relocation of his liquor shop was in violation of the Excise policy 2022-23 of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was argued that such an approval for relocation also ran contrary to the provisions under Section 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915. The Petitioners contended that the said relocation could have been approved only by a High-Level Committee comprising of the Collector and all the MLAs of the District. However, the Petitioners submitted, no such approval was obtained by the Respondent/Caveator.

Relying on Rule (II) (2) of notification issued U/S 62(2)(i) of M.P. Excise Act, the Petitioners submitted that when a liquor shop is proposed to be opened on a new site at which liquor may be consumed on the premises, the Advisory Committee shall publish the fact in locality and specify cut-off date for inviting objections. Such Advisory Committee, after considering objections, shall prepare a report and submit the same to the Collector, based on which, the Collector may sanction the proposal. However, in the present case, the Petitioners argued, no such objections were sought for by the Advisory Committee from the residents living in the vicinity of the liquor shop-cum-bar.

Per contra, the Respondent/Caveator argued that there was no need to seek permission to relocate the shop as it was moved within the permitted periphery. It was further submitted that he was not in violation of the Excise policy 2022-2023 or the Act of 1915.

Considering the submissions of the parties and documents on record, the Court noted that the Respondent/Caveator was granted license specifically for the location where his liquor shop was located earlier and not for the location where the shop was subsequently moved-

Respondent No.5 had passed over a document over the Board to Court i.e. licence No.20/2022-23 for composite wine shop for country made and foreign liquor, but said licence is granted for opening shop in Indira Market, Sanjay Gandhi Ward, Jabalpur but same is not licence and permission granted to do business at Dasilva Compound/a newly relocated area. As per general licence condition III, the premises on which sales under any Excise, licence may conducted shall be specified in the licence. Licence relied upon by respondent No.5 is not in respect of relocated area.

The Court further noted that the Respondent/Caveator was unable to show that he had obtained any permission from the High-Level Committee based on which the Collector had passed the order approving the relocation of the liquor shop.

The Court has granted 4 weeks' time to the Respondent/Caveator to file his reply. The matter is listed for week commencing 20.06.2022.

Case Title: SANTOSH KANOJIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Representations

Mr. Kishore Shrivastava (Sr. Advocate), with Mr. Sarabvir Singh Oberoi for Petitioners

Mr. Anil Khare (Sr. Advocate), with Mr. Rahul Diwakar for Caveator

Mr. Jagat Singh for Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur