Shobha Janardhan Kadtan vs The Collector The Superintendent ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1021 Bom

                                         1                         WP-3108.16


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                         
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 3108 OF 2016




                                                 
     Shobha w/o Janardhan Kadtan
     Age: 47 years, Occu: Business (Hotel Ashirwad),
     R/o. Renuka Niwas Bank Colony,
     Vasmat, Tq. Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli           ...Petitioner




                                                
              Versus

     1]       The Collector,




                                       
              The Superintendent of State Excise Department,
              Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

     2]
                             
              Devanand s/o Rajagaud Mushkam
              Age: 56 years, Occu: Business,
              R/o. Ganeshnagar, Vasmat,
                            
              Tq. Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli

     3]       The Commissioner, State Excise Department,
              Maharashtra, 2nd Floor, Old Custom House,
              Mumbai                               ... Respondents
      


                                     .....
   



     Mr. Amit S. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner
     Mr. S. K. Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents No.1 and 3
     Mr. A. K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.2
                                     .....





                                   CORAM :   SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 30th MARCH, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2 WP-3108.16

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner apprehends

in view of communication dated 22nd December, 2015 annexed to

the petition at Exhibit-"T" page 120, application annexed to the

petition at Exhibit-"U" page 122 may have to be taken into

account, however under the order dated 21 st December, 2015

the petitioner is required to submit eating house license which

under the communication dated 22 nd December, 2015 appears to

have been dispensed with.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, however, submits

that, it cannot be said that the requirement of eating house

license can said to be totally dispensed with. He submits that the

matter for continuation/regrant/renewal of FL-3 license is

pending before respondent No.1 and as such, petition is

premature.

4. Having regard to aforesaid contentions, it would be

appropriate that respondent No.1 decides the application at

Exhibit-"U" page 122 having regard to the facts, circumstances

and law, and after hearing the parties concerned.

5. In the circumstances, petition is being disposed of with

directions as follows.

3 WP-3108.16

6. Respondent No.1 to decide the request being made for

continuation/regrant/renewal of FL-3 license having regard to

the application at Exhibit-"U" page 122 as well as after hearing

the concerned parties in accordance with facts, circumstances

and law. Respondent No.1 may take decision on the same as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of fortnight

from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

7.

It is open for the petitioner to make request for interim

relief which may be decided by the respondent No.1

expeditiously.

8. The parties to appear before respondent No.1 on 1 st April,

2016.

9. All the contentions of respective parties are kept open.

10. As such, writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in

aforesaid terms.

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )

sms