1 WP.7212.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7212 OF 2017.
Smt. Parineeta w/o Parmanand
Jaiswal, Aged 44 years,
Occ. Businesswoman,
R/o Mardi, Tq. Maregaon,
District Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of State Excise
Mantralaya,
Madam Kama Road,
Mumbai-440032,
2] The Collector, State Excise,
Yavatmal,
3] The Superintendent,
State Excise, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2017.
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER , J.)
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:47:22 :::
2 WP.7212.17
1] Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for
the parties finally by consent.
2] Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, learned Advocate for petitioner, points
out that FL-III licence was declined to petitioner by Collector as appellant did not produce the certificate showing authorized nature of construction in which shop was to be located and police report was adverse. This order was questioned in Appeal under Section 137(2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Commissioner, State Excise has on 16.10.2017 allowed that appeal. Thereafter office of Collector has not taken any steps though petitioner approached in various Revisions.
3] Mr. V.P. Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, upon instructions states that in appeal the Appellate Authority, namely, Commissioner has only mentioned that appeal is allowed. Course to be followed thereafter has not been specified. Hence, the office of Collector felt handicapped and had sought guidance from Appellate Authority. He upon further instructions in Court also states that now the Appellate Authority has advised Collector to proceed further in the matter. ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:47:22 :::
3 WP.7212.17
4] Perusal of appeal memo filed by petitioner reveals prayer
therein. Prayer was to quash and set aside order dated 24.7.2017 passed by respondent therein and to direct him to grant FL-III licence to appellant forthwith.
5] Appellate Authority has in its order dated 16.10.2017 found that rejection of FL-III licence was due to non-production of authorized construction certificate and adverse police report. These facts are looked into and the consideration shows that as per police report there was no past history of communal riots. The rejection of request, therefore, because of adverse police report is found unsustainable. The circular dated 1.2.2005 issued by the Government is also looked into to note that it does not mandate authorized construction certificate of the premises. Thus, both reasons are found unsustainable and hence, in para 6 the order of Collector impugned in appeal has been set aside. In paragraph no. 7 Appellate Authority states that the appeal is allowed. 6] This necessarily implies that after setting aside reasons for rejection of FL-III licence, the Commissioner has asked respondent no.2 Collector to issue FL-III licence. We, therefore, find no substance in contentions of learned A.G.P.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:47:22 :::
4 WP.7212.17
7] We, therefore, make rule absolute in terms of prayer
clause (1) and direct the respondent no. 2 to issue FL-III licence as applied for within one week from today. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:47:22 :::