The Bombay High Court has clarified that the statutory prohibition on liquor sales during elections applies strictly to polling areas, not entire districts. This ruling reinforces the principle that executive orders must conform to the precise territorial limits prescribed by law, preventing overreach by administrative authorities under the guise of maintaining public order.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a member of the Maharashtra Rajya Madyavikreta Association, challenged an order issued by the District Collector of Latur directing a complete ban on the sale of liquor across the entire Latur District from 6 February to 9 February 2026. The ban was imposed in anticipation of elections to Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis scheduled for 7 February 2026, with counting on 9 February 2026.
Procedural History
- 2 February 2026: District Collector issued order under Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, banning liquor sales throughout Latur District.
- 14 February 2026: Writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) challenging the territorial scope of the ban.
- 5 February 2026: Court heard the matter finally by consent of parties.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and a declaration that the liquor ban could only apply to the specific polling areas for Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections, excluding areas within municipal or corporation limits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 permits a district-wide prohibition on liquor sales during elections, or whether the restriction is confined strictly to the boundaries of the polling area as defined by the election schedule.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. V.S. Undre, argued that Section 135-C explicitly limits the ban to "within a polling area" and that Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections are conducted in rural wards, excluding municipal and corporation areas. He cited orders from District Collectors of Solapur, Kolhapur, and Pune, which imposed restrictions only in polling areas. He also relied on the Nanded Zilla Madya Vikreta Sanghatana v. State of Maharashtra judgment, where the Division Bench of this Court had held the same interpretation.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Pleader contended that the District Collector, as the chief executive officer of the district, has broad powers under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 to impose prohibitory orders in the interest of public order during elections. He argued that a district-wide ban was necessary to prevent large-scale movement of liquor and maintain peace.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual and contextual analysis of Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The provision clearly states that the prohibition applies "within a polling area" during the 48-hour period preceding the conclusion of the poll. The Court emphasized that the language is unambiguous and territorial in nature.
"The ban to sell out or distribution of liquor is contemplated within a polling area during the period of 48 hours ending with hour fixed for conclusion of poll for election in that area."
The Court noted that the elections for Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis are conducted in specific electoral constituencies, which do not overlap with municipal or corporation limits. Imposing a district-wide ban, therefore, exceeded the statutory mandate. The Court further observed that the District Collector of Latur himself had previously applied the correct interpretation in January 2026, restricting the ban to the Latur Municipal Corporation area during its elections. This internal consistency undermined the State’s current position.
The Court also affirmed the precedential value of Nanded Zilla Madya Vikreta Sanghatana v. State of Maharashtra, reinforcing that administrative discretion cannot override the express territorial limitation in a statute.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Section 135-C permits liquor bans only within the defined polling areas for Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections. The impugned order was modified to restrict the prohibition to those specific polling areas, excluding municipal and corporation limits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Liquor Ban Must Be Geographically Precise
- Practitioners must verify the exact polling area boundaries before challenging or defending any excise order.
- District Collectors cannot rely on general public order concerns to justify district-wide bans when the statute prescribes a narrower scope.
Precedent from Other Districts Is Admissible
- Orders issued by other District Collectors applying the correct interpretation can be cited as persuasive authority to demonstrate consistent administrative practice.
- Courts will favor uniformity in statutory application across jurisdictions.
Statutory Language Trumps Administrative Convenience
- Even in election-related contexts, executive action must conform to the precise language of the enabling statute.
- The doctrine of ultra vires applies strictly where statutory limits are clear and unambiguous.
No Blanket Authority Under Prohibition Act
- The Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, does not override the specific territorial limits in Section 135-C.
- Any attempt to use broader excise powers to circumvent the RP Act’s restrictions will be struck down.
