The Bombay High Court on Tuesday declined to grant interim relief to a liquor traders’ association that had challenged a government order enforcing a three-day prohibition on the sale of alcohol in Mumbai ahead of the civic elections. The ban covers January 14, 15 and 16, in accordance with an order issued by the Mumbai Collector, with polling scheduled for January 15 and counting of votes set for January 16.
A division bench comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Abhay Mantri refused to stay the order at this stage while hearing a petition filed by the Association of Progressive Retail Liquor Vendors. The association has questioned the applicability of Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to municipal elections, arguing that the provision should not automatically extend to local body polls. The bench observed that the legal challenge would require a detailed examination and accordingly issued notice to the state government.
During the hearing, the Maharashtra government informed the court that the decision to impose the liquor ban was taken in view of the ongoing Municipal Corporation elections and was in line with established practice during polls. The state further clarified that the restriction would be lifted immediately after the declaration of election results on January 16.
Additional Government Pleader Priyanka Chavan, appearing on behalf of the state, submitted that the counting of votes in ward-level municipal elections usually takes only two to three hours. She argued that, in practical terms, the prohibition on liquor sales would not extend throughout the entire day on January 16 and would be withdrawn soon after the counting process is completed.
Counsel for the petitioner association, advocates Suresh Sabrad and Amey Sawant, contended that the nearly two-and-a-half-day-long ban would result in significant financial losses for licensed liquor vendors. They argued that such an extended prohibition was unnecessary, particularly on January 14, when neither campaigning nor polling is scheduled to take place. The lawyers maintained that restricting liquor sales beyond polling hours was excessive and disproportionate.
The petitioners also relied on earlier High Court rulings where liquor sales had been permitted on the day preceding polling and resumed immediately after counting was over. They reiterated that Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was meant for parliamentary and assembly elections and should not automatically govern municipal elections, which operate under a different legal framework.
After considering the submissions from both sides, the bench declined to pass an interim stay on the three-day liquor ban. The court noted that such relief could be granted only if the rule in question appeared prima facie arbitrary or imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to trade and carry on business. Since this determination would require closer scrutiny, the court directed both parties to file their replies and rejoinders, listing the matter for further hearing in March.
