Bombay High Court
Smt. Parineeta W/O Parmanand ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 18 December, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.7212.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7212 OF 2017.
Smt. Parineeta w/o Parmanand
Jaiswal, Aged 44 years,
Occ. Businesswoman,
R/o Mardi, Tq. Maregaon,
District Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of State Excise
Mantralaya,
Madam Kama Road,
Mumbai-440032,
2] The Collector, State Excise,
Yavatmal,
3] The Superintendent,
State Excise, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2017.
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER , J.)
2 WP.7212.17
1] Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for
the parties finally by consent.
2] Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, learned Advocate for petitioner, points
out that FL-III licence was declined to petitioner by Collector as
appellant did not produce the certificate showing authorized nature of
construction in which shop was to be located and police report was
adverse. This order was questioned in Appeal under Section 137(2)
of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Commissioner, State Excise
has on 16.10.2017 allowed that appeal. Thereafter office of Collector
has not taken any steps though petitioner approached in various
Revisions.
3] Mr. V.P. Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, upon instructions states that in
appeal the Appellate Authority, namely, Commissioner has only
mentioned that appeal is allowed. Course to be followed thereafter
has not been specified. Hence, the office of Collector felt
handicapped and had sought guidance from Appellate Authority. He
upon further instructions in Court also states that now the Appellate
Authority has advised Collector to proceed further in the matter.
3 WP.7212.17
4] Perusal of appeal memo filed by petitioner reveals prayer
therein. Prayer was to quash and set aside order dated 24.7.2017
passed by respondent therein and to direct him to grant FL-III licence
to appellant forthwith.
5] Appellate Authority has in its order dated 16.10.2017 found
that rejection of FL-III licence was due to non-production of
authorized construction certificate and adverse police report. These
facts are looked into and the consideration shows that as per police
report there was no past history of communal riots. The rejection of
request, therefore, because of adverse police report is found
unsustainable. The circular dated 1.2.2005 issued by the
Government is also looked into to note that it does not mandate
authorized construction certificate of the premises. Thus, both
reasons are found unsustainable and hence, in para 6 the order of
Collector impugned in appeal has been set aside. In paragraph no. 7
Appellate Authority states that the appeal is allowed.
6] This necessarily implies that after setting aside reasons for
rejection of FL-III licence, the Commissioner has asked respondent
no.2 Collector to issue FL-III licence. We, therefore, find no
substance in contentions of learned A.G.P.
4 WP.7212.17
7] We, therefore, make rule absolute in terms of prayer
clause (1) and direct the respondent no. 2 to issue FL-III licence as
applied for within one week from today. Writ Petition is disposed of
accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
