Bombay High Court
Mrs. Rashmi W/O Satyendra Jaiswal vs The State Of Maharashtra ... on 28 August, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp3417.15 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3417 OF 2015
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 2814 OF 2015
1. WRIT PETITION NO.3417 OF 2015 :
Mrs.Rashmi w/o. Satyendra Jaiswal,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Vidarbha Housing Society,
Yavatmal, Tq. and District
Yavatmal. ....... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of State Excise,
through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Collector,
Yavatmal.
3. The Superintendent,
State Excise, Yavatmal.
4. The Inspector,
State Excise, Pandharkawada
(Kelapur), Distt. Yavatmal.
5. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Pandharkawada,
District Yavatmal.
6. Gram Panchayat,
Mohada, Tq. Pandharkawada,
District Yavatmal, through its
Secretary. ........ RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 01:06:33 :::
wp3417.15 2/4
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
None for the Petitioners.
Ms Tajwar Khan, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr.Nalin Majethia, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2. WRIT PETITION NO.2814 OF 2015 :
Umesh s/o. Shaligram Jaiswal,
Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Mohada, Tq. Pandharkawada,
District Yavatmal. ....... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of State Excise,
through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Commissioner,
State Excise, Old Custom
House, Fort, Mumbai-400032.
3. The Collector,
State Excise, Yavatmal.
4. The Superintendent,
State Excise, Yavatmal.
5. The Inspector,
State Excise, Pandharkawada
(Kelapur), Distt. Yavatmal.
6. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Pandharkawada,
District Yavatmal.
7. The Gram Panchayat,
Mohada, Tq. Pandharkawada,
District Yavatmal, through its
Secretary. ........ RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 01:06:33 :::
wp3417.15 3/4
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
None for the Petitioners.
Ms Tajwar Khan, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Mr.Nalin Majethia, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : SMT VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 28.8.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Vasanti A Naik, J) :
1. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is identical
and similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together and are
decided by this common Judgment.
2. By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have sought a
declaration that the resolution of the respective Gram Sabhas,
dt.25.3.2015 for the closure of the liquor shops of the petitioners are
illegal. The petitioners have sought a declaration that the resolutions of
the Gram Sabha are contrary to the law.
3. When these matters came up for admission and hearing, we
had admitted the Writ Petitions and granted interim relief, thereby
staying the effect and operation of the impugned orders directing the
wp3417.15 4/4
petitioners to close the liquor shops and seek the transfer of the liquor
licenses, if desired. In view of the interim relief granted by this Court,
the petitioners continued to operate the liquor license during the
pendency of the Writ Petitions.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, in view of the
procedure prescribed in the Government Orders, it would be necessary
that the petitioners should apply for the renewal of license and the fact
that the license is sought to be renewed should be brought to the notice
of the Gram Sabha 30 days before the date of expiry of the license.
5. Since the petitioners continued to operate the license during
the pendency of the Writ Petitions despite passing of the impugned
orders, we dispose of the Writ Petitions with a direction to the
petitioners to act according to the relevant rules and the Government
Orders while seeking renewal of liquor license. Rule is made absolute in
the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*jaiswal
