Bombay High Court
Rajashri Ramdas Pund vs The State Of Maha., Through The ... on 10 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp6596.15.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6596 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Rajashri Ramdas Pund, aged about 41
years, Occ: Business, R/o Takalghat,
Tq. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur; holding CL-
III License No.322 at H.No.184, Plot
No.183, Ward No.3, Mouza PIPRI
(Gondwana), Tq. Hingna, Dist.
Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT: 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
ig the Secretary, State Excise & Home
Dept., Mantralaya, MUMBAI.
2. The Collector, State Excise, Nagpur.
3. The Superintendent, State Excise,
Nagpur.
Shri S. G. Jagtap, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Tajwar Khan, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 10
th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
24-9-2015 passed by the respondent No.1 restraining the
petitioner from operating the CL-III License that stands transferred
in her name.
wp6596.15.odt 2/3
3. Vide order dated 11-8-2014, the respondent No.1
permitted the the transfer of the license that was initially standing
in the name of one Smt. Ferao. By subsequent communication
dated 24-11-2014, said license stood transferred in the name of
the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 24-9-2015, the State
Government stayed the order of transfer on the ground that it was
necessary to verify as to whether all the necessary terms and
conditions requisite for transfer had been complied with.
ig Shri S. G. Jagtap, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order dated 24-9-2015 passed by the State
Government was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition
No.3315/2015 and by judgment dated 29-10-2015, said order in
respect of the petitioner therein has been quashed. He, therefore,
submits that in these facts, the order dated 24-9-2015 in so far as
it pertains to the present petitioner also deserves to be set aside.
5. Ms Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the order
dated 24-9-2015 now stands quashed in view of aforesaid
judgment of the Division Bench. She, however, states that the
respondent can always take necessary action if warranted in
accordance with law.
6. In view of the judgment in Writ Petition
wp6596.15.odt 3/3
No.3315/2015, it is clear that the order dated 24-9-2015 has been
found to have beeen issued without any authority of law. Hence,
for same reasons, the order impugned in the present writ petition
is also liable to be set aside.
7. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:
(1) The order dated 24-9-2015 in so far as it relates to the
present petitioner stands quashed and aside.
(2) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
