Sadaiah Rajanarsu Karukapa ... vs The Collector, Yavatmal (State ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 410 Bom

                                                                                    1                                                                wp967.16

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                                                         WRIT PETITION NO.967/2016

Sadaiah Rajanarsu Karukapa (Karupaka), 
aged about 46 Yrs., R/o Ghuggus, 
District Chandrapur, partner of Hotel Gitanjali 
Restaurant and Wine Bar, Mouza Matholi, 
Tq. Wani, District Yavatmal.                                                                                                                                    ..Petitioner.

            ..Vs..

The Collector, Yavatmal
(State Exercise) through Superintendent
of State Excise, Yavatmal.                                                                                                                           ..Respondent.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
           Ms. P. Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. 
           Shri H.D. Dubey, A.G.P. for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



                                                                  CORAM :  Z.A.HAQ, J.

                                                                  DATE  :     2.3.2017.                                                     



ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms. P. Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri H.D.

Dubey, A.G.P. for the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. By the impugned order passed on 2 nd February, 2016 the Authority

has suspended the license of the petitioner for one month, exercising powers

under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. This Court by the order

2 wp967.16

passed on 9th February, 2016 stayed the effect and operation of the impugned

order. The respondent has not made any complaint against the petitioner

about repetition of activity because of which the license of the petitioner came

to be suspended.

In view of the above facts, in my view, the impugned order is

required to be set aside.

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i).

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Tambaskar.