Bombay High Court
Shri. Anandrao S/O Jagannathrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 6 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 2500/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2500/2015
Shri Anandrao S/o Jagannathrao Gaidhane,
aged 58 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 : 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 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 as
at the time of renewal of the CL-III license of the petitioner for five years,
in the year 2011, though the premises/shop was located in the Gram
Panchayat, the said shop falls within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur
Municipal Corporation, with effect from 14.05.2013.
WP 2500/15 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner was granted a CL-III license in the year 2010.
In the year 2011, while seeking the renewal of license, the petitioner
sought to deposit the license fees equal to 4½ times the fees chargeable
for the renewal of the license for one year in terms of the provisions of
Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Periodicity and Fees for Grant,
Renewal or Continuance of License) Rules, 1996. As per Rule 4(a) of the
Rules of 1996, a license could be renewed for one year, whereas, as per
Rule 4(b), a license could be renewed for five years by payment of fees
that are equal to 4½ times the fees that are chargeable for grant or
renewal of license for one year. Since the petitioner deposited 4½ times
the license fees for one year, the license of the petitioner was renewed by
the Collector, Prohibition and Excise in the year 2011 for a period of five
years. At the relevant time, when the license was renewed, the country
liquor shop of the petitioner fell within Narsala Gram Panchayat with the
population slab between 5001 to 10000. On 14.05.2013, by a
notification published by the State Government, village Narsala was
included within the limits of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. As
different license fees are provided on the basis of the population of the
city, town or village within which the licensed shop is located, the
Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur issued the impugned
communication, dated 30.03.2015, asking the petitioner to pay the
difference of license fees for the period from 2013-14 to 2015-16. The
action on the part of the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur,
WP 2500/15 3 Judgment
demanding higher fees from the petitioner despite the renewal of license
on the payment of fees as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 1996, the
petitioner has challenged the said communication in the instant petition.
4. Shri Jagtap, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that while seeking the renewal of the license, the petitioner had resorted
to Rule 4(b) of the rules of 1996 that provides for the renewal of license
for five years on payment of 4½ times the fees chargeable for the license
for one year. It is stated that in the year 2011, the petitioner paid 4½
times the fees chargeable for the renewal of the license for five years as
per Rule 4(b) of the Rules and the license was renewed by the Collector
of Excise for the year 2011 for the period from 2011 to 2016. It is stated
that merely because Gram Panchayat Narsala, within whose jurisdiction,
the licensed shop was located was subsequently included in the limits of
the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, the petitioner could not have been
directed to pay higher license fees. It is stated that the petitioner had
sought the benefit of the renewal of license by resorting to Rule 4(b) of
the Rules of 1996. It is stated that the respondents would be entitled to
seek higher license fees from the petitioner only after the year 2016. It is
stated that the respondents are estopped from seeking higher license fees
from the petitioner as the license of the petitioner is renewed for a period
of five years on payment of license fees that were liable to be paid at the
relevant time in the year 2011.
WP 2500/15 4 Judgment
5. Ms Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents, has supported the action on
the part of the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur. It is stated that
when the petitioner applied for renewal of license for five years in the
year 2011, the country liquor shop was located in Narsala Gram
Panchayat. It is stated that the population of Narsala Gram Panchayat
was between 5001 to 10000 and as village Narsala was included within
the limits of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation in May-2013, the
petitioner is liable to pay higher license fees as the population of
Nagpur city is more than twenty lakhs. It is stated that merely because
the license of the petitioner was renewed for five years in the year 2011,
the petitioner cannot be exempted from payment of higher license fees.
It is stated that as per Rule 24(1B) of the Maharashtra Country
Liquor Rules, 1973, fees are liable to be paid on the basis of the
population of the village, town or city. It is stated that the State
Government has issued the notifications, enhancing the fees that are
liable to be paid in terms of the population of the village, town or city
from time to time and on the basis of the notifications, the petitioner is
directed to pay the difference in license fees for the period from 2013-14
to 2015-16.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that there is no propriety in the action on the part of the Superintendent,
WP 2500/15 5 Judgment
State Excise, Nagpur in directing the petitioner to pay additional
license fees for the years 2013-14 to 2015-16. The license of the
petitioner was renewed for five years in terms of the Rule 4(b) of the
Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Periodicity and Fees for Grant, Renewal or
Continuance of License) Rules, 1996. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996 reads
thus :-
"4. Fee for grant, renewal or continuance,----
(a) ig Fee for grant, renewal or continuance of a license
for one year shall be as notified by the
Commissioner at least sixty days in advance of the
financial year; and
(b) Fee for grant of renewal of a license for five years
shall be equal to four and a half times the fees
chargeable for the grant of renewal or
continuance, as the case may be, of that license
for one year."
It is apparent from a reading of the Rule 4(b) that a license could be
renewed for a period of five years on payment of fees equal to 4½ times
the fees chargeable for the grant or renewal of the license for one year.
There is no dispute that the petitioner deposited the fees that are equal
WP 2500/15 6 Judgment
to 4½ times the fees chargeable for license for one year, in the year
2011. It is also not in dispute that the CL-III license of the petitioner
was renewed for a period of five years in terms of the Rule 4(b) of the
Rules of 1996, in the year 2011. At the relevant time, the country
liquor shop of the petitioner was located within Narsala Gram Panchayat.
By a notification issued by the State Government on 14.05.2013,
Narsala was included in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The CL-III
license of the petitioner was renewed for a period of five years as per
Rule 4(b) in the year 2011 and the said act of renewing the license for a
period of five years was completed on payment of the license fees for
five years as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 1996, in the year 2011. The
petitioner availed the benefit of Rule 4(b) while seeking the renewal of
his license for a period of five years though the same could have been
renewed for a period of one year as per Rule 4(a). Merely because the
country liquor shop was brought within the territorial limits of the
Nagpur Municipal Corporation on 14.05.2013, the respondents could not
have sought the difference in license fees for the years 2013-14 to
2015-16 on the ground that the population of Nagpur city is more than
twenty lakhs. Nothing is pointed out from the Act or the Rules that
permits the respondents to demand higher license fees, no sooner than
the licensed shop falls within a city after a village or town is included
in the city. The reliance placed by the learned Assistant Government
Pleader on Rule 24(1B) for seeking higher license fees is not well
WP 2500/15 7 Judgment
founded. Rule 24(1B) provides for the different fees on the basis of
the proposed location of the licensed shop. The proposed location of the
licensed shop was Narsala village when the license was initially granted
to the petitioner in 2010. The shop was located in Narsala village
when the license was renewed for five years in the year 2011. Sub-Rule 3
of Rule 24 throws more light on the controversy. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 24
speaks of the renewal of license on payment of fees, where the licensed
shop is located within a town, village or a city with the population
mentioned in the said sub-rule. There was already a renewal of license
in favour of the petitioner for five years from 2011 to 2016 and,
therefore, there was no question of renewing the license of the
petitioner. When the license was renewed in view of the provisions of
Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 1996, there could have been no occasion for
the Superintendent, State Excise, Nagpur to seek higher renewal fees
from the petitioner on the basis of the impugned communication and
the notifications issued by the State Government from time to time, by
referring to the inclusion of village Narsala within the limits of the
Nagpur Municipal Corporation, on 14.05.2013. Since the license of
the petitioner stood renewed till 2016, there was no propriety in the
action of the part of the respondents to seek higher license fees from the
petitioner. The impugned communication is bad in law and is liable to be
set aside.
WP 2500/15 8 Judgment
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned communication is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
APTE
WP 2500/15 9 Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on : 07.09.2016.
