Smt. Malti W/O Rameshwar Bawankar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1756 Bom

                                                                                  wp2381.16
                                              1




                                                                               
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                       
                          WRIT PETITION       No. 2381 OF 2016


    Smt. Malti w/o Rameshwar Bawankar,




                                                      
    aged about 51 years, Occ.: Business,
    r/o "Maa Amba Niwas", Telipura,
    Gandhi Chowk, Kamptee,
    District Nagpur.




                                            
    Through her power of attorney holder
    Shri Rameshwar s/o Suganchand Bawankar,
    aged about 56, Occ.: Business,
                               
    r/o "Maa Amba Niwas", Telipura,
    Gandhi Chowk, Kamptee,
    District Nagpur.                                       .... PETITIONER.
                              
                              VERSUS
      


    1. The State of Maharashtra,
       Secretary, State Excise Deptt.,
   



       Mantralaya, Madam Kama Road,
       Mumbai-32.

    2. The Collector,





       State Excise,
       Nagpur.                                     ....  RESPONDENT.


    Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate, with Advocate N.A. Padhye for the Petitioner.
    Shri Shyam Ahirkar, AGP, for respondents.





                                      .....

                                        CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 22.04.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Issue notice to the respondents for final

wp2381.16

disposal. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of

respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of parties.

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-Collector.

4. It appears that the respondent-Collector 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

wp2381.16

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

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. Such an argument cannot be

accepted for the simple reason that the Show Cause Notice

(Annexure-B) 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

wp2381.16

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.

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 no.2-Collector 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/