Bombay High Court
Mrs. Ananta Wd/O Manohar Mahure ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 20 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.5637.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 5637/2016
1) Mrs. Ananta wd/o Manohar Mahure
Aged about 60 years, occu; Business
R/o Aiyappa Swami nagar, Near Police Line Takli
Nagpur.
2) Mrs. Lata wd/o Manohar Mahure
Aged about 59 years, occu: Business
R/o Gittikhadan, Nagpur. ..PETITIONERS
v e r s u s
1) State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
State Excise, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2) The Commissioner,
State Excise, Mumbai,.
3) The Collector
State Excise, Nagpur,
4) The Superintendent,
State Excise, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri Anand Jaiswal, Senior counsel with N.A. Padhye,
Advocate for petitioners
Smt.Bharati Dangre, Government Pleader for Respondents
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 20 December, 2016
th
wp.5637.16
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners seeks a direction against the
Collector, State Excise, to immediately decide the applications of the
petitioners, dated 22.6.2015 and 13.5.2016 respectively, and permit the
petitioners to shift the country liquor shop in Block No.2, House No. 2659/2
in Ganesh Colony, Pratapnagar, Nagpur after renewing the CL.III license by
accepting the license fees for the current year.
3. The petitioners were operating a CL.III license since long.
However, the license could not be operated after 1999-2000 as the shop in
which the country liquor license was operated, was demolished, in view of
road widening. The petitioner applied to the State Government for permission
to shift the shop. The matter lingered for years together as there was a
dispute whether license fees were payable by the petitioners for the period
during which the license was not operational. In the year 2006, the dispute
was somewhat resolved and on 27.08.2014, the State Government directed
the Collector to ascertain the position for the operation of the CL.III license by
the petitioners in the shop where it was sought to be transferred. Despite the
wp.5637.16
specific direction of the State Government in this regard, the Collector, State
Excise did not take any further action in the matter. The petitioners repeatedly
communicated to the Collector vide communications dated 2.9.2014 and
5.11.2014 and others, but without any success. The Collector, State Excise,
then, came up with the excuse that it would be necessary for him to obtain a
fresh police report, to consider whether the petitioner could operate the CL.III
license in House No. 2659/2 in Ganesh Colony. The Commissioner, however,
passed an order that it was not necessary for the Collector, State Excise, to
obtain a fresh police report as the premises in which the petitioner desired to
operate the CL.III license was in the midst of two shops, wherein FL.II and
FL.III licenses were operated. In view of the order of the Commissioner, the
petitioners applied to the Collector, State Excise for doing the needful, vide
communications dated 22.6.2015 and 13.5.2016, but the authorities failed to
consider the same. In this background, the petitioners have filed the instant
petition for seeking the aforesaid directions against the respondents.
4. Mrs. Bharati Dangre, the learned Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents submitted that in view of the Government Circular, dated
13.2.2012, it is necessary for the Collector, State Excise to prepare a report in
respect of the licenses that are not operational for one year or more and send
it to the State Government so that the State Government could pass
wp.5637.16
appropriate orders in respect of the permission to transfer the licenses in the
concerned premises and to renew the licenses for the current year.
5. It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the
Collector, State Excise was not justified in refusing to follow the orders of the
State Government of September, 2014 and the communication/order of the
Commissioner holding that it was not necessary to seek a fresh police report
in the matter. The question whether the license fees were payable by the
petitioners for the period during which the license was not operational, was
decided in September, 2014 when the State Government directed the Collector
to ascertain the position and permit the petitioners to operate the license
without payment of any fees for the period during which the license was not
operational. The Collector, State Excise, ought to have permitted the
petitioners to operate the license in Shop No.2659/2 if there was no other
impediment in doing so. It was observed by the Commissioner in the
communication/order passed in the year 2015, that there was no reason to
secure a fresh police report in the matter of the operation of the CL.III license
in House No. 2659/2. In view of the said order, the Collector ought to have
accepted the license fees for the current year and should have permitted the
petitioners to operate the license in the concerned premises. However, it
appears that by taking recourse to the Circular dated 13.2.2012, the
wp.5637.16
Collector, again, prepared a fresh report in respect of the status of the license
of the petitioners and sent the same to the Government. There was no need
for the Collector, State Excise to do so, especially when the State Government
had passed an order in September,2014 permitting the petitioners to operate
the license on payment of license fees and the Collector, State Excise was
directed take appropriate steps in the matter of renewal of the petitioners'
license. We do not find any propriety in the action on the part of the Collector,
State Excise, in refusing to allow the petitioners to start the business
immediately after the State Government passed the order in September, 2014.
We find that a reference to the Circular dated 13.2.2012 is a lame excuse for
not permitting the petitioners to operate the license as the matter is again
sought to be referred to the State Government when the State Government
had in September, 2014, after taking a stock of the matter, permitted the
petitioners to operate the license and had directed the Collector, State Excise,
to look into the matter in respect of the operation of the license. In the
circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to direct the Collector, State
Excise to accept the fees from the petitioners for the current year and permit
the petitioners to operate the license in House No. 2659/2 if there is no other
impediment in doing so.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed.
The Collector, State Excise, is directed to accept the license fees and renew the
wp.5637.16
license of the petitioners for the current year and permit the petitioners to
operate the license in Shop No. 2659/2, if there is no other impediment in
doing so.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as
to costs.
JUDGEig JUDGE
sahare
