Tipplers cheer Bombay High Court booze order
February 20, 21 and 23 to be dry days; liquor can be sold after results are out.
Mumbai: A decision, which has brought relief to many tipplers and liquor shop owners, the Bombay high court on Friday, altered the state excise notification that had initially imposed dry days from February 19 to 21. The HC ordered that the dry day would commence from the morning of February 20, 21 and 23. The HC also said that liquor shops could be opened after results are declared on February 23 instead of keeping them shut till 5 pm.
A division bench of Justice V.M. Kanade and Justice P.R. Bora altered the notification while hearing a petition filed by Hotel Owners Association from Thane, challenging a circular issued on January 24 by Thane collector and state excise department declaring dry days from the evening of February 19 to 21 and on February 23.
The petitioner contended that according to the list of dry days issued by excise department, February 21 was already declared a dry day for Swami Dayanand Saraswati Jayanti, and February 24, for Mahashivratri. The petitioners had said that the prohibition on sale of liquor would be in force for “five days and cause them a loss in revenue” and that the order, “infringes upon their fundamental right to earn a livelihood”.
After hearing arguments the HC bench held that there was no need to impose the ban on sale of liquor from two days prior to the elections. The dry day was to commence from 5 pm on February 19 but after the HC order it will now start from the morning of February 20. As per notification the dry day was to remain in force on February 20 to 21 and on February 23, when the election results will be declared. The judges observed that since electronic machines are used for counting votes, the results are out by the afternoon. Hence, there was no need to keep dry day enforced till 5 pm. “We are also of the view that it is not necessary to impose ban on sale of liquor after the results are declared on February 23,” the HC bench observed.
During hearing the state had justified the ban claiming that it had powers to do so under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. During the hearing, the bench however, was of the view that the said Act provided for such ban only during Assembly and Lok Sabha polls.