Bombay High Court
Shri. Jaichand S/O Jagannathrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 10 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 2501/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2501/2015
Shri Jaichand S/o Jagannathrao Gaidhane,
aged 36 years, Occ: Business,
R/o "Shri.Anand Towers", Plot No.11, 12 & 27,
Hudkeshwar (Bu.), Narsala, Taq. Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the H'ble Minister,
State Excise department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector, State Excise, Nagpur.
3. The Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.G. Jagtap, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms T. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
CORAM :SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.
DATE : 10 TH OCTOBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the
communication issued by the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur, dated
30.03.2015, asking the petitioner to pay the difference of license fees on
the ground that the liquor shop was located in the area of Gram
Panchayat at the relevant time when the license fees for the renewal of
license for five years was paid and the said shop falls within the
jurisdiction of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, with effect from
14.05.2013.
WP 2501/15 2 Judgment
3. Shri Jagtap, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that in almost identical set of facts, this Court has, by the
judgment dated 06.09.2016, allowed Writ Petition No.2500 of
2015 and quashed a similar order passed by the Superintendent,
State Excise, Nagpur. It is stated that since the license of the
petitioner stood renewed till the year 2015, there is no propriety
in the action on the part of the respondent-Superintendent State
Excise, Nagpur in passing the impugned order dated 30.03.2015
directing the petitioner to pay additional license fees for the period
from 2013 to 2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner states
that after the period of five years expired in the year 2015, the
petitioner started paying the license fees for the year 2015-16
and thereafter by considering that the shop falls within the jurisdiction
of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation.
4. Ms Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents, does not dispute that the question, that
falls for consideration in this writ petition, was decided by this Court in
Writ Petition No.2500 of 2015 and by the judgment dated 06.09.2016, a
similar order passed by the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur was set
aside.
WP 2501/15 3 Judgment
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of this writ petition and the judgment dated 06.09.2016 in Writ
Petition No.2500 of 2015, it appears that the issue involved in this writ
petition was also involved in Writ Petition No.2500 of 2015 and this
Court has, by the judgment dated 06.09.2016, held that there was no
propriety in the action of the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur in
seeking higher license fees from the petitioner therein for the period for
which the license already stood renewed. A similar order would be
necessary in this writ petition also, on parity.
6. Hence, for the reasons recorded hereinabove and for the
reasons recorded in the judgment dated 06.09.2016 in Writ Petition
No.2500 of 2015, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is
quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
APTE
