Narayan S/O Laxmanrao Ghatbandhe vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 811 Bom

 Judgment                                              1                                wp1620.17.odt




                  
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                               WRIT PETITION NO.1620 OF 2017


 Narayan S/o. Laxmanrao Ghatbandhe,
 Aged about 65 years, Occ.: Business,
 Resident of Mouza Keshori, Tahsil :
 Arjuni Morgaon, District : Gondia.
                                                                           ....  PETITIONER.


                                        //  VERSUS //

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    through its Secretary, 
    State Excise Department, 
    Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

 2) The Collector,
    State Excise Department, 
    Room No.203, Second Floor, 
    Collectorate, Gondia, Tahsil 
    and District : Gondia. 

 3) The Superintendent of State
    Excise Department, Gondia,
    Tahsil and District : Gondia. 
                                                                        .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                                      . 

 ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Petitioner.  
 Shri A.A.Madiwale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.   
 ___________________________________________________________________

  
                               CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MARCH 17, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

Judgment 2 wp1620.17.odt

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the

learned Collector by which CL-III and FL-III licence of the petitioner are

suspended for one month on the ground that there is discrepancy in the

stock shown in the record and the stock actually available at the

premises.

4. The learned A.G.P. has raised preliminary objection to the

maintainability of the petition on the ground that the impugned orders

can be challenged in appeal under Section 137 of the Maharashtra

Prohibition Act, 1949.

The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that

though the alternate statutory remedy is available to the petitioner,

considering the nature of penalty inflicted by the impugned orders and

as the impugned orders are passed by the learned Collector in flagrant

violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court should entertain

the petition.

5. It is undisputed that the impugned order is passed without

hearing the petitioner. Though the notice was given to the petitioner,

Judgment 3 wp1620.17.odt

according to the petitioner, he was hospitalized during the relevant

period and to support this submission, the petitioner has placed on

record certificates issued by the doctor by whom he has been treated.

6. In the facts of the case, overruling the preliminary

objection taken by the learned A.G.P., following order is passed to sub-

serve the ends of justice :

        i)        The impugned orders are set aside.

        ii)       The learned Collector-State Excise Department shall grant 

hearing to the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders

in the matter.

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Collector, State

Excise Department, Gondia on 4th April, 2017 at 11.00a.m.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE RRaut..