WP 2501/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2501/2015
Shri Jaichand S/o Jagannathrao Gaidhane,
aged 36 years, Occ: Business,
R/o "Shri.Anand Towers", Plot No.11, 12 & 27,
Hudkeshwar (Bu.), Narsala, Taq. Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the H'ble Minister,
State Excise department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector, State Excise, Nagpur.
3. The Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.G. Jagtap, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms T. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
CORAM :SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.
DATE : 10 TH OCTOBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the communication issued by the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur, dated 30.03.2015, asking the petitioner to pay the difference of license fees on the ground that the liquor shop was located in the area of Gram Panchayat at the relevant time when the license fees for the renewal of license for five years was paid and the said shop falls within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, with effect from 14.05.2013.
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2016 00:26:02 :::WP 2501/15 2 Judgment
3. Shri Jagtap, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that in almost identical set of facts, this Court has, by the judgment dated 06.09.2016, allowed Writ Petition No.2500 of 2015 and quashed a similar order passed by the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur. It is stated that since the license of the petitioner stood renewed till the year 2015, there is no propriety in the action on the part of the respondent-Superintendent State Excise, Nagpur in passing the impugned order dated 30.03.2015 directing the petitioner to pay additional license fees for the period from 2013 to 2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the period of five years expired in the year 2015, the petitioner started paying the license fees for the year 2015-16 and thereafter by considering that the shop falls within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation.
4. Ms Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, does not dispute that the question, that falls for consideration in this writ petition, was decided by this Court in Writ Petition No.2500 of 2015 and by the judgment dated 06.09.2016, a similar order passed by the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur was set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2016 00:26:02 :::WP 2501/15 3 Judgment
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of this writ petition and the judgment dated 06.09.2016 in Writ Petition No.2500 of 2015, it appears that the issue involved in this writ petition was also involved in Writ Petition No.2500 of 2015 and this Court has, by the judgment dated 06.09.2016, held that there was no propriety in the action of the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur in seeking higher license fees from the petitioner therein for the period for which the license already stood renewed. A similar order would be necessary in this writ petition also, on parity.
6. Hence, for the reasons recorded hereinabove and for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 06.09.2016 in Writ Petition No.2500 of 2015, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE APTE ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2016 00:26:02 :::