Ruplal Shivlal Jaiswal vs The Collector, Buldhana
2017 Latest Caselaw 10050 Bom

                                                                    wp7651.17


                                        1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                        Writ Petition No. 7651 of 2017

 Ruplal Shivlal Jaiswal,
 aged 72 years,
 occupation - business,
 resident of at Post Sagwan,
 Dhadnaka,
 Tq. & Distt. Buldana.                           .....           Petitioner


                                   Versus


 The Collector, Buldhana,
 Tq. & Distt. Buldhana.                          .....        Respondent

                                    *****
 Mr. A. R. Deshpande, Adv., for the petitioner.
 Mr. K. R. Lule, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent.


                                    *****

                                CORAM :         A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

                                 Date       :   22nd December, 2017





                                                                        wp7651.17






 ORAL JUDGMENT:

01. In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned

counsel for the parties have been heard by issuing Rule and making

the same returnable forthwith. Shri K. R. Lule, learned Asst. Govt.

Pleader waives notice on behalf of respondent.

02. An order dated 24th November, 2017 passed by the

respondent - Collector canceling CL-III License issued to the petitioner

under provisions of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 [for short, "the

said Act"] is under challenge.

03. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the CL-III

License No. 89 issued to him, he was running a retail country liquor

shop at Mouza Sagwan, Tq. & Distt. Buldana. However, in view of the

orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, he sought shifting of

said license at another place. This permission was granted by the

respondent. On 28th November, 2017, the petitioner got knowledge

that an order dated 24th November, 2017 was passed by the

respondent directing closure of his liquor shop. Being aggrieved by

that action and after obtaining necessary documents, this Writ Petition

has been filed.

wp7651.17

04. It is submitted by Shri A.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for

the petitioner, that the impugned order dated 24th November, 2017

has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. The

petitioner was not heard before the drastic action of canceling the

petitioner's CL-III License and sealing his shop was taken. By virtue of

permission granted earlier, the petitioner was permitted to shift the

place of business within permissible limits. If the respondent desired

to take any action against the petitioner, it could have been done by

following the due process of law. It is, therefore, submitted that

despite availability of a statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction can be

exercised as the impugned order has been passed in breach of

principles of natural justice.

05. Shri K. R. Lule, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the

respondent, supported the impugned order by relying upon the

affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that due to

various complaints of local residents resulting in giving rise to law and

order problems, the impugned order came to be passed. Even if the

petitioner was permitted to shift the place of business as it was found

that the same was against the public interest, the impugned order

came to be passed. He also submitted that as an alternate remedy

under Section 137 of the said Act was available to the petitioner, the

wp7651.17

Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained.

06. After hearing respective counsel and after perusing the

documents filed on record, I find that the impugned order has been

passed in violation of principles of natural justice. No opportunity of

hearing was given to the petitioner before the license in question was

canceled and his premises were sealed. A specific ground in that

regard has been raised in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition to which

there is no reply. It is well settled that if an Authority proposes to pass

an order having civil consequences, an opportunity of hearing is

required to be granted. By virtue of the impugned order, the license

granted in favour of the petitioner stands canceled and the business

premises have been sealed without hearing the petitioner. On this

short ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Once it is

found that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of

natural justice, the availability of alternate remedy loses its

significance. I find a case made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction on

the aforesaid count.

07. Hence, as an upshot of the aforesaid reasons, following

order is passed:-

[a] The order dated 24th November, 2017 passed by the

wp7651.17

respondent is quashed and set aside. The respondent to take necessary remedial steps in that regard immediately.

[b] It is open for the respondent to take necessary action by following due process of law if the circumstances so warrant any action being taken.

08. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.

09. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned

counsel for the parties as per rules, to act upon.

Judge

-0-0-0-0-

|hedau|