All Benches are at par: Bombay High Court on whether challenge to lifting of liquor ban should go to Nagpur Bench

The Bombay High Court will decide on the administrative side the question of whether a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the lifting of a liquor ban in Chandrapur district of Maharashtra ought to be decided by its Principal Seat or the Nagpur Bench..The petition by Dr Abhay Bang challenged the decision of the Council of Ministers as well as the consequent circular dated June 8, 2021, repealing the ban on the sale of liquor imposed in Chandrapur district in April 2015. The plea also challenged the subsequent circulars on the ground that they were illegal and against public policy..While hearing the matter today, the Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik mused as to why a petition that concerns a region falling within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench should come before the Principal Seat.Senior Advocate Rafiq Dada and Advocate Uday Warunjikar, representing the petitioner, stated that the lifting of the ban on liquor in a tribal region affected the women and children of that region. Dada added that while the decisions under challenge were taken in Mumbai, the effect of the same may be seen in all of Maharashtra, and that the petitioner was not indulging in forum shopping. He thus reiterated his request to have the Principal Seat hear the PIL..However, Chief Justice Datta stated that the fact that the decision was taken in Mumbai was no reason for all such challenges to come before the Principal Seat."With Mantralaya (Legislative assembly) being here, all decisions are bound to be taken here. But the effect will be seen in Nagpur, so the petition has to be desirably go to Nagpur," the Bench said.The Chief Justice emphasised that all benches of the Bombay High Court were at par with one another."I consider the Principal Bench as well as the others Benches of the High Court at par with each other. You are challenging an order of Chandrapur, then you need to go to Nagpur Bench as that has the jurisdiction. Had you come before the June order then we could look into it. Or if you say that you will not challenge the order and this petition is pan-Maharashtra, then we will look into it," he said..The Bench listed the matter on the administrative side for determination as to whether the Principal Seat should continue hearing it or whether it should be heard by the Nagpur Bench..The petitioner is a medical practitioner and social activist who works with tribals. He had spearheaded the movement for prohibition of liquor in the district of Gadchiroli in 1992. A similar ban was imposed in Chandrapur in 2015. However, in June, the Maharashtra Cabinet decided to repeal the ban and reintroduce the sale and consumption of liquor in Chandrapur district.The plea claimed that the reasons for revoking the ban were based on the memoranda opposing prohibition which were collected from the public, most often the illegal pan thelas, without verification of the persons who signed it. The petition stated that the reasons cited in the Cabinet decision of May were not only false and incorrect, but also irrelevant.