Judgment 1 wp6824.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6824 OF 2016
Mrs. Trupti Dinesh Meshram
aged about 32 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. Vaishali Nagar, Khat Road,
Bhandara.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Collector, Bhandara,
having its office at Bhandara.
2. Superintendent of State Excise,
Bhandara.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri S.P.Palshikar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri N.R.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by consent of the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:45:25 :::
Judgment 2 wp6824.16.odt
3. The petition challenges an order passed by Superintendent of State Excise, Bhandara on 6th October, 2016 rejecting the application of the petitioner for FL-III licence for running of a bar and restaurant. It is an admitted position that the original order of the Collector of Bhandara passed on 28th May, 2014, permanently cancelling the FL-III licence in favour of Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram who was running a bar and restaurant by the name of 'D.M. Restaurant and Bar' at Khat Road, Vaishali Nagar, Bhandara, was interfered with by the Minister of State Excise on a revision application by the licence-holder Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram. In his order passed in revision on 28th August, 2014, the Hon'ble Minister directed the wife of the original licence holder to make an appropriate application for licence to Collector, Bhandara. The Collector, Bhandara was directed to either transfer the original licence held by Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram to his wife or if that was not possible under the applicable Rules, to issue a new licence in favour of his wife after compliance with the requirements of law in that behalf and against an affidavit from all the family members of the original licence holder, Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram, that he (Dinesh) would have no right in respect of the transferred/ newly issued licence. In pursuance of the revisional order, the petitioner herein, who is the wife of the original licence holder, Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram, applied to the Collector of Bhandara. A report was obtained in this behalf from various authorities such as Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Bhandara, Inspector of State Excise, Bhandara as also Superintendent of Police, Bhandara. All authorities by their reports ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:45:25 ::: Judgment 3 wp6824.16.odt indicated favourable opinions for issuance of the licence, after considering the facts of the case and recording the statements of nearby residents and commercial establishments. In spite of the revisional order passed by the Hon'ble Minister and the favourable reports submitted by the concerned authorities on the application made by the petitioner in pursuance of the revisional order, by his impugned order dated 6 th October, 2016, the Superintendent of State Excise, Bhandara rejected the application for licence submitted by the petitioner.
4. The leaned A.G.P. for the State, whilst supporting the impugned order passed by the Superintendent State Excise, submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy and that the decision to refuse FL-III licence to the petitioner was taken by the Committee after duly considering the police report and possibility of a law and order situation.
5. The impugned order of the Superintendent of State Excise is apparently based on minutes of a committee meeting of Collector, Bhandara, representative of Superintendent of Police, Bhandara, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara and Member Secretary cum Superintendent of State Excise, Bhandara. From the minutes of that meeting produced with the petition it appears that what the Committee has considered is the earlier report of the Superintendent of Police and not the current reports obtained on the application of the petitioner herein which are referred to above. This ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:45:25 ::: Judgment 4 wp6824.16.odt was clearly impermissible. In view of the revisional order passed by the Hon'ble Minister, which is not challenged before any Court or Authority, and has since become final it was incumbent on the Superintendent of State Excise to issue the licence, if there were no unfavourable reports for issue of such licence. The committee appears to have considered a prior police report, when all current reports of the authorities, namely, (i) Police Station, Bhandara, (ii) Inspector of State Excise, Bhandara and (iii) Superintendent of Police, Bhandara, indicated a favourable opinion for grant of FL-III licence to the petitioner. It is nobody's case that the petitioner has not otherwise complied with the requirements of law for issuance of an FL-III licence.
6. In the premises, the impugned order of the Superintendent, State Excise cannot be sustained. The Superintendent ought to have followed the order of the State Minister and granted FL-III licence to the petitioner. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the order of the Superintendent of State Excise dated 6 th October, 2016 and directing the Superintendent of State Excise and Collector to issue FL-III licence to the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:45:25 :::