Bombay High Court
M/S Orient Wine Company Pvt. Ltd. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 17 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3355of16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3355/2016
M/s. Orient Wine Company Pvt. Ltd
A company Registered under the relevant
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at 80, Trimurti
Nagar, Sarswati Vihar, Ring Road, Nagpur,
through tis Managing Director,
Shri Dhananjay S/o Govind Deodhar,
aged about 65 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o Central Excise Layout, Pratap Nagar,
Nagpur.
ig ..Petitioner.
..Versus..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Department of
State Excise, Mantralaya, Madam
Kama Road, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
State Excise, Nagpur.
3. The Superintendent,
State Excise, Nagpur. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri N.A. Padhye, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.D. Sonak, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 17.6.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri N.A. Padhye, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri A.D. Sonak,
A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2 wp3355of16
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Superintendent, State
Excise directing that the CL-III license of petitioner shall stand suspended for 15
days as the petitioner has committed breach of Rules 32 and 41 of the Maharashtra
Country Liquor Rules, 1973 as according to the Authorities, the liquor bottle worth
Rs.23.70 paise is sold for Rs.27/- thereby charging Rs.3.30 paise more from the
customer.
The explanation given by the petitioner is that because of rush and mistake
in calculations, the amount returned to the customer was not proper.
The learned A.G.P. has submitted that this is the second occasion when the
petitioner is found to have committed default. The order passed on 29 th April, 2014
imposing penalty of Rs.50,000/- is pointed out and it is submitted that the petitioner
had accepted that order and deposited the amount of penalty.
4. The facts on the record show that there is default on the part of the
petitioner, however, considering the nature of default and the explanation given by
the petitioner, in my view, the penalty is harsh.
Though the petitioner alleges malafides, without going into that aspect, in my
view, the matter can be disposed by passing the following order:
(i) The impugned order is modified. Instead of suspension of license of the
3 wp3355of16
petitioner for 15 days, it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.20,000/- (Rs.
Twenty Thousand Only) towards penalty with the respondent No.3 within one
month.
(ii) The respondents shall remove the seal from the shop of the petitioner
forthwith so that the petitioner can continue the business from today itself.
(iii) The petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
(iv) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
