Pramod Narayanrao Katakwar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2793 Bom

                                            1                                           wp3261.16




                                                                                     
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                             
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.3261 OF 2016




                                                            
     Pramod Narayanrao Katakwar,
     Aged about 52 years, 
     Occupation - Business, 




                                               
     R/o Amgaon, Tq.- Amgaon, District-
     Gondia.                  ig                                      ....       PETITIONER

                            VERSUS
                            
     1) State of Maharashtra, 
         through its Collector, Gondia,
         District Gondia.
      


     2) State of Maharashtra, 
   



         through Superintendent of State Excise,
         Gondia, District Gondia.                                     ....       RESPONDENT


     ______________________________________________________________





                 Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for the petitioner, 
                   Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the respondents.
      ______________________________________________________________





                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 13 JUNE, 2016 th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for the petitioner and

Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.

2 wp3261.16

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the

learned Collector, suspending the CL-III licence of the petitioner for

seven days on the ground that the petitioner has sold the bottle of

country liquor of which M.R.P. was Rs.197.44 for Rs.200/-.

4. The impugned order is supported by the learned Assistant

Government pleader contending that the petitioner has admitted his

fault and as he has recovered amount of Rs.2.56 paisa more than the

M.R.P. there is violation of Rules 32 and 36 of the Maharashtra

Country Liquor Rules, 1973 and condition No.8 of the licence.

5. The petitioner gave explanation in the matter and pointed

out that because of the rush of customers, sometimes it happen that

the balance amount which is negligible is not returned to the

customers and customers also do not insist for the balance amount if

the amount is negligible and change is not available. The subordinate

authorities have not considered the explanation which, in my view, is

worth consideration. The penalty imposed on the petitioner is harsh

and could not have been imposed considering the nature of default of

3 wp3261.16

the petitioner. In my view, the impugned order is unsustainable.

6. Hence, the following order :

                       (i)     The impugned order is set aside.

                       (ii)    The   penalty   imposed   on   the   petitioner   directing




                                                      

suspension of licence for seven days is quashed.

(iii)

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

(iv) The learned Assistant Government Pleader shall intimate

this order to the concerned authorities.

(v) The authenticated copy of this judgment be given to the

learned Assistant Government Pleader.

JUDGE

adgokar