Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O Ramchandra Chandpurka vs The State Minister Of State ... on 25 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3665.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.
3665/2016
Ashok S/o Ramchandra Chandpurkar,
aged about 59 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o residing at near Sarvajanik Durgamata
Temple, Vitthal Nagar, Distt. Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..VS..
1. The State Minister of State Excise,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Commissioner of State Excise,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai,
Old Custom House, Fort,
Mumbai 400 023.
3. The District Collector,
Nagpur, Collectorate, Civil Lines,
Nagpur, Tq. and Distt. Nagpur.
4. The Superintendent of State Excise,
Collectorate, Civil Lines, Nagpur,
Tq. and Distt. Nagpur.
5. Vitthal s/o Ramchandra Chandpurkar,
aged about 61 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o Plot No.244, Vinkar Vasahat,
Manewada Road, Nagpur. Respondents.
..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri N.L. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Shri S.W. Sambre, Advocate for respondent No.5.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 25.7.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri N.L. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri S.W. Sambre,
Advocate for the respondent No.5 and Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1
to 4.
2 wp3665.16
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The learned Collector passed an order on 11th April, 2016 directing that
till the inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 is resolved, Cl-III
license shall stand suspended. The respondent No.5 challenged the above order by
filing an appeal under Section 137 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The
respondent No.5 also prayed for an interim order. The appeal was filed on or about
7th May, 2016 before the Commissioner for State Excise. The respondent No.5
simultaneously filed revision under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act
praying that the record and proceedings of the case before the Collector be called and
the order passed by the Collector on 11th April, 2016 be set aside. The respondent
No.5 also prayed that till the disposal of the revision application, the order passed by
the learned Collector on 11th April, 2016 be stayed. The revision is filed before the
State Government on 12th May, 2016. The State Government has passed an order in
the revision on 12th May, 2016 directing that till the appeal filed by the respondent
No.5 is decided by the Commissioner of State Excise, the order passed by the
Collector on 11th April, 2016 shall stand stayed. The petitioner being aggrieved by
the order passed by the State Government on 12th May, 2016, has filed this writ
petition.
4. It is the contention of the respondent No.5 that the Commissioner of State
Excise orally refused to pass any order on the application for interim order and,
therefore, the respondent No.5 had no option but to approach the State Government
under revisional jurisdiction. The submission made on behalf of the respondent No.5
cannot be accepted. The revision memo does not disclose happening of such an event
3 wp3665.16
before the Commissioner of State Excise. Moreover, the respondent No.5 cannot be
permitted to simultaneously prosecute two proceedings in the same matter before two
different Authorities. The impugned order dated 12th May, 2016 shows that the final
relief is granted to the respondent No.5 without giving notice to the petitioner and
without hearing the petitioner.
Though the submissions are made on behalf of the petitioner and the
respondent No.5 about the maintainability of revision under Section 138 of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, in the facts of the present case, I am not considering the
submissions as the respondent No.5 cannot be permitted to prosecute two different
proceedings simultaneously.
5. Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order passed by the State Government on 12th May, 2016
is set aside and the revision filed by the respondent No.5 is dismissed.
(ii) The Commissioner of State Excise is directed to dispose the appeal filed
by the respondent No.5 till 30th August, 2016.
(iii) The petitioner and the respondent No.5 undertake to appear before the
Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai on 9th August, 2016 at 11
a.m.
(iv) The petitioner and the respondent No.5 shall submit the written notes of
arguments before the Commissioner of State Excise on 9th August, 2016 and abide by
further instructions/orders in the matter.
(v) The petition is disposed in the above terms.
(vi) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
4 wp3665.16
CERTIFICATE
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment/Order".
Uploaded By : N.V. Tambaskar. Uploaded On : 29.7.2016.
Personal Assistant.
