wp7651.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 7651 of 2017
Ruplal Shivlal Jaiswal,
aged 72 years,
occupation - business,
resident of at Post Sagwan,
Dhadnaka,
Tq. & Distt. Buldana. ..... Petitioner
Versus
The Collector, Buldhana,
Tq. & Distt. Buldhana. ..... Respondent
*****
Mr. A. R. Deshpande, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. K. R. Lule, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date : 22nd December, 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:47 ::: wp7651.17 2 ORAL JUDGMENT:
01. In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. Shri K. R. Lule, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader waives notice on behalf of respondent.
02. An order dated 24th November, 2017 passed by the respondent - Collector canceling CL-III License issued to the petitioner under provisions of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 [for short, "the said Act"] is under challenge.
03. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the CL-III License No. 89 issued to him, he was running a retail country liquor shop at Mouza Sagwan, Tq. & Distt. Buldana. However, in view of the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, he sought shifting of said license at another place. This permission was granted by the respondent. On 28th November, 2017, the petitioner got knowledge that an order dated 24th November, 2017 was passed by the respondent directing closure of his liquor shop. Being aggrieved by that action and after obtaining necessary documents, this Writ Petition has been filed.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:47 :::
wp7651.17 3
04. It is submitted by Shri A.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order dated 24th November, 2017 has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not heard before the drastic action of canceling the petitioner's CL-III License and sealing his shop was taken. By virtue of permission granted earlier, the petitioner was permitted to shift the place of business within permissible limits. If the respondent desired to take any action against the petitioner, it could have been done by following the due process of law. It is, therefore, submitted that despite availability of a statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction can be exercised as the impugned order has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice.
05. Shri K. R. Lule, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent, supported the impugned order by relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that due to various complaints of local residents resulting in giving rise to law and order problems, the impugned order came to be passed. Even if the petitioner was permitted to shift the place of business as it was found that the same was against the public interest, the impugned order came to be passed. He also submitted that as an alternate remedy under Section 137 of the said Act was available to the petitioner, the ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:47 ::: wp7651.17 4 Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained.
06. After hearing respective counsel and after perusing the documents filed on record, I find that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the license in question was canceled and his premises were sealed. A specific ground in that regard has been raised in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition to which there is no reply. It is well settled that if an Authority proposes to pass an order having civil consequences, an opportunity of hearing is required to be granted. By virtue of the impugned order, the license granted in favour of the petitioner stands canceled and the business premises have been sealed without hearing the petitioner. On this short ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Once it is found that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the availability of alternate remedy loses its significance. I find a case made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction on the aforesaid count.
07. Hence, as an upshot of the aforesaid reasons, following order is passed:-
[a] The order dated 24th November, 2017 passed by the ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:47 ::: wp7651.17 5 respondent is quashed and set aside. The respondent to take necessary remedial steps in that regard immediately.
[b] It is open for the respondent to take necessary action by following due process of law if the circumstances so warrant any action being taken.
08. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
09. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties as per rules, to act upon.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau| ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:47 :::