Sou. Punam Karan Jaiswal vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6999 Bom

                                                                                  1                                                                wp3480.17

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

                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.3480/2017

Sau Punam Karan Jaiswal,
aged about 27 Yrs., Occu. Business, 
u/CL-III License No.13 at House 
No.503, Rathi Mansion, Bapat Square,
Amravati.                                                                                                                                               ..Petitioner.
                          ..Vs..
1.          The State of Maharashtra,
            through the Secretary, Department 
            of State Excise, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 

2.          The Commissioner, State Excise,
            Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 

3.          Collector, State Excise, Amravati.

4.          The Superintendent, State Excise,
            Amravati. 

5.          Executive Engineer, Public Works
            Department, Amravati.                                                                                                                  ..Respondents.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
            Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mrs. M.A. Barabde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


                                                                 CORAM :  S.C. GUPTE, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     11.9.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P.

for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of counsel.

3. This petition challenges an order of cancellation of liquor vending

2 wp3480.17

licence of the petitioner's country liquor shop purportedly on the ground that

the shop is within 500 meters of state highway. It is not in dispute that the

shop is within municipal limits. The original order passed by the Supreme

Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Home,

Prohibition and Excise Department and others V/s. K Balu and another reported

in (2017) SCC 281 prohibited vending of liquor within 500 meters of state or

national highway. On the basis of this order, the licence of the petitioner was

cancelled. The Supreme Court has, however, issued a clarification

subsequently in the case of Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh V/s. The Union

Territory of Chandigarh & Anr. that its order of 15th December, 2016 does not

apply to shops and to vending of liquor within municipal areas of cities and

towns. In view of this clarification issued by the Supreme Court, the impugned

order of the respondent - State will have to be set aside. Accordingly, the

petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31 st

March, 2017 passed by respondent No.3. Since the impugned order is now set

aside, the petitioner will be within her rights to carry the business at the licence

premises in accordance with the original Cl-III licence. Learned counsel for the

petitioner states that the renewal charges of this licence have been paid on 21 st

March, 2017 for the year 2017 - 2018. The statement is accepted.

JUDGE Tambaskar.