B.B.Sanas Co.Pvt.Ltd vs The Collector Of Pune And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2698 Bom

                                          1                     233) wp1221-99.doc

sas
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                       CIVIL APPEL ATE JURISDICTION

                          WRIT PETITION NO.1221 OF 1999


      B.N. Sanas Company Private
      Limited holding FL II Licence
      No.5 and carrying on business
      in the name and style of
      M/s.Nupur Wines, situated at
      A/4, Vivekanand Park, 3,
      Wallesly Road, Pune - 411 001.              ..Petitioner.

                      V/s.

      1.     The Collector of Pune,
             State Excise Deparment, Pune.

      2.      The Commissioner, State Excise,
              having his office at Old Customs
              House, Mumbai.

      3.      The State of Maharashtra            ..Respondents.


      Ms.Veena B.Thadani with Mr.Mahesh Gowda & Mr. Prinyak Raut
      for the Petitioner.

      Mr.Vagyani, Government Pleader with Mr.Rohan Sawant, AGP for
      the Respondents-State.


                                      CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

DATE : 1 JUNE, 2017

2 233) wp1221-99.doc

ORAL JUDGMENT

The matter is called out for final hearing as the matter is

specifically listed for final hearing in summer vacation. Heard the

learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government

Pleader for the State.

2. The Petitioner which is a private limited company

holding FL II licence and carrying on business of selling liquor for

more than several years have challenged the levy of fine of

Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 104 of the Bombay Prohibition Act,

1949 (The Bombay Prohibition Act) by the impugned order dated

26 November, 1998 passed by Respondent No.3 (Minister of State

Excise Department).

3. There is no issue that there was transfer and assignment

of the business. The Petitioner had applied to Respondent No.1 for

transferring the licence and business under the provisions of Rule

61A of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The authorities at

the relevant time had, after considering the submissions and

3 233) wp1221-99.doc

materials placed on record, by a reasoned order quashed and set aside

the order dated 30 March, 1998 passed by the Commissioner

cancelling the licence transfer and thereby restoring the actual

licence however, subject to payment of composition fee of

Rs.1,50,000/-.

4. The power vested with the Respondents in respect of

composite fees is not in dispute. However, the submission raised is

that based upon various orders passed by the concerned authority in

similarly placed matters, while transferring the licences a reasonable

compensation fees ranging from Rs.5,000/- and odd were charged.

However, huge compensation fee of Rs.1,50,000/- is charged against

the Petitioner. This amounts to treating equals unequally.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed

on record various orders passed in writ petitions in similarly placed

matters, wherein the authorities have also charged sum of Rs.5,000/-

as compensation fees. Some of the orders are on record, including

the order passed by the Collector on 26 November, 1998 and 26

4 233) wp1221-99.doc

November, 1997. There is no specific reason of imposing such an

huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and as there are earlier orders passed

by the authorities in similarly placed matters where compensation

fees were restricted to around Rs.5,000/-. These similar orders are

passed after considering the orders passed by the High Court in

various writ petitions. There is no case made out and no reasons are

given by the learned authority while imposing such huge

compensation only against the Petitioner by passing the impugned

order.

6. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, I am inclined to

interfere with the order passed only to the extent of imposing

Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation fees and restrict the same to

Rs.10,000/- which should be paid by the Petitioner. Learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out that based upon

impugned order dated 26 November, 1998, they have already

deposited the amount under protest. In my view, in view of the

above, the balance amount is required to be refunded to the

Petitioner. The Petitioner to take steps by applying for refund and

5 233) wp1221-99.doc

the Respondents to deal with the same as early as possible, preferably

within a period of six weeks from today.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has prayed

for interest on this amount. However, considering the facts and

circumstances, I am passing this order today, therefore, there is no

question of granting interest. The prayer for interest is rejected.

However, the balance amount is required to be refunded to the

Petitioner by following due process of law. The petition is disposed

of.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) iuer