Writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus or any other writ to allow sale of liquor

Abhinav Mishra| Kirit P. Mehta School of Law| 15th June 2020

Case Name: Ojus Marketing Management Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. V. Commissioner, State Excise Maharashtra and Ors.

Introduction

The petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking the writ of Mandamus or any other writ to direct the respondents to allow sale of liquor from the said shop. The bench Comprises of S.J.Kathawalla, & S.P. Tavade

Facts

• Petitioner No.1 is a holder of a valid FL II licence issued under Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and carries on its business of retail sale of spirit, wine, beer and other alcoholic beverages.
• In view of the outbreak of a pandemic, the Govt. of Maharashtra issued a notification which imposed a complete lockdown in the state. The lockdown has been extended from time to time with some relaxation. On a notification dated 23^rd March,2020 Respondent No.1 issued guidelines under which holders of FL II license having Standalone shops in the Metropolitan Region were allowed operations but this guidelines excluded liquor shops inside malls.
• On 4^th May, 2020 the petitioners made representation before respondent Nos. 1&2 to permit them to resume commerce of liquor. However, they never received a reply.
• On 5^th May, 2020 there was another order which imposed closure of all non-essential shops, including the standalone liquor shops. And then an order dated 22^nd May,2020 they allowed sale of liquor but only through delivery to the home of the customer however it still disallowed shops in mall even through home delivery.
• On 22^nd May, 2020 the petitioners made oral representation before Respondent Nos. 1&2 once again but was refused by the respondents. On 23^rd May, 2020 they addressed a letter to respondents for a written clarification but there was no reply to the letter.
• Hence they filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant them permission for the sale of liquor.

Holding

The Bombay HC allowed the writ petition agreeing with the petitioner’s argument that since to enter the petitioner’s shop one does not actually have to enter the CR2 Mall as the entry and exit of the said shop is completely independent and separate with the entry of the Mall.

Brief Analysis

The HC after having looked at the lay out plan and the photographs of the entrance of the shops agreed with the petitioners argument that the Shops’ entrance was separate and independent of that of the Mall’s holding that the arguments of the respondents was too mechanical in application and that in matter such as the present case the approach of respondents should be more practical, rather than technical. Thus, the writ petition was allowed.

Conclusion

The HC allowed the petition holding that the state must adhere to the intention behind the guidelines rather than applying it mechanically without any nuances. Here the intent was to ensure that too many people don’t gather in one place and following the norms of social distancing. Here, the state have to be more practical, rather than technical.