Bombay High Court
M/S. Saki Wines Shop, Manewada ... vs The District Collector State ... on 22 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp2359.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2359 OF 2016
M/s Saki Wines Shop,
Manewada Road, Nagpur.
Through its partner
Pravin Balkrushna Kale,
aged about 50 years,
r/o Anand Apartment,
Dhantoli, Nagpur. .... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
The District Collector,
(State Excise Department)
Nagpur. .... RESPONDENT.
Shri Abhay Sambre Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Amit Balpande, AGP, for respondent.
.....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 22.04.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Issue notice to the respondent for final
disposal. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of
respondent.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of parties.
wp2359.16
3. Upon going through the impugned order, I find
myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner
when he submits that the order does not spell out any reason for
which the licence in question has been suspended until further
orders by the respondent.
4. It appears that the respondent has been swayed
away only by the fact that some persons were found in illegal
possession of bottles of country liquor in a district, district of
Chandrapur, where policy of prohibition of liquor is being
implemented and that these persons made a statement that they
purchased the bottles of country liquor from the shop of the
petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner
had made any attempt or had indeed sold the country liquor
bottles in a dry district like Chandrapur. It is an admitted fact
that those bottles were sold by the petitioner in Nagpur district,
where there is no such prohibition. In such a case, ordinarily, a
seller could not be held responsible unless there is some material
available on record establishing nexus between seller and the
person found to be illegally possessing or attempting to transport
illegally the country liquor bottles in a dry district. No such
material, as seen from the impugned order, is available on
wp2359.16
record.
5. Learned AGP has submitted that the petitioner has
sold excess quantity of liquor to just one person and this fact
itself would show that there can probably be some connection
between the petitioner and the illegal activities being carried out
by the persons found in illegal possession of country bottle
liquors in Chandrapur district.ig Such an argument cannot be
accepted for the simple reason that the Show Cause Notice
(Annexure-3) does not make out any such case. There is no
reference in this notice that the petitioner had sold excess
quantity of liquor to one or singular party in breach of conditions
of liquor licence.
6. Apart from the flaws noted above, as rightly
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned
order has been passed by denying to the petitioner a sufficient
opportunity of hearing and representing its case before the
respondent.
7. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be
sustained in law and it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
wp2359.16
8. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned
order dated 19.4.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration of
the whole issue. Sufficient opportunity of hearing shall be
granted to the petitioner and that would also include personal
hearing. The documents sought for by the petitioner shall be
made available to him. The licence in question shall stand
revived for the term for which it is valid, subject, however, to
result of the proceedings remanded to the respondent. If any
seals are placed on the shop, same shall be removed forthwith.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No cost.
JUDGE
/TA/
