Trupti W/O Dinesh Meshram vs Collector Bhandara And Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 7351 Bom

 Judgment                                            1                                wp6824.16.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 6824 OF 2016



 Mrs. Trupti Dinesh Meshram
 aged about 32 years, Occupation : Business, 
 R/o. Vaishali Nagar, Khat Road,  
 Bhandara. 
                                                                         ....  PETITIONER.

                                      //  VERSUS //

 1. Collector, Bhandara,
    having its office at Bhandara. 

 2. Superintendent of State Excise,
    Bhandara. 


                                                   .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                     .
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri S.P.Palshikar, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Shri N.R.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. 
 ___________________________________________________________________


                              CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing

by consent of the parties.

Judgment 2 wp6824.16.odt

3. The petition challenges an order passed by Superintendent of

State Excise, Bhandara on 6th October, 2016 rejecting the application of the

petitioner for FL-III licence for running of a bar and restaurant. It is an

admitted position that the original order of the Collector of Bhandara passed

on 28th May, 2014, permanently cancelling the FL-III licence in favour of

Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram who was running a bar and restaurant by the

name of 'D.M. Restaurant and Bar' at Khat Road, Vaishali Nagar, Bhandara,

was interfered with by the Minister of State Excise on a revision application

by the licence-holder Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram. In his order passed in

revision on 28th August, 2014, the Hon'ble Minister directed the wife of the

original licence holder to make an appropriate application for licence to

Collector, Bhandara. The Collector, Bhandara was directed to either transfer

the original licence held by Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram to his wife or if that

was not possible under the applicable Rules, to issue a new licence in favour

of his wife after compliance with the requirements of law in that behalf and

against an affidavit from all the family members of the original licence

holder, Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram, that he (Dinesh) would have no right in

respect of the transferred/ newly issued licence. In pursuance of the

revisional order, the petitioner herein, who is the wife of the original licence

holder, Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram, applied to the Collector of Bhandara. A

report was obtained in this behalf from various authorities such as Police

Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Bhandara, Inspector of State Excise, Bhandara

as also Superintendent of Police, Bhandara. All authorities by their reports

Judgment 3 wp6824.16.odt

indicated favourable opinions for issuance of the licence, after considering

the facts of the case and recording the statements of nearby residents and

commercial establishments. In spite of the revisional order passed by the

Hon'ble Minister and the favourable reports submitted by the concerned

authorities on the application made by the petitioner in pursuance of the

revisional order, by his impugned order dated 6 th October, 2016, the

Superintendent of State Excise, Bhandara rejected the application for licence

submitted by the petitioner.

4. The leaned A.G.P. for the State, whilst supporting the

impugned order passed by the Superintendent State Excise, submits that the

petitioner has an alternative remedy and that the decision to refuse FL-III

licence to the petitioner was taken by the Committee after duly considering

the police report and possibility of a law and order situation.

5. The impugned order of the Superintendent of State Excise is

apparently based on minutes of a committee meeting of Collector, Bhandara,

representative of Superintendent of Police, Bhandara, Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara and Member Secretary cum Superintendent

of State Excise, Bhandara. From the minutes of that meeting produced with

the petition it appears that what the Committee has considered is the earlier

report of the Superintendent of Police and not the current reports obtained

on the application of the petitioner herein which are referred to above. This

Judgment 4 wp6824.16.odt

was clearly impermissible. In view of the revisional order passed by the

Hon'ble Minister, which is not challenged before any Court or Authority, and

has since become final it was incumbent on the Superintendent of State

Excise to issue the licence, if there were no unfavourable reports for issue of

such licence. The committee appears to have considered a prior police

report, when all current reports of the authorities, namely, (i) Police Station,

Bhandara, (ii) Inspector of State Excise, Bhandara and (iii) Superintendent of

Police, Bhandara, indicated a favourable opinion for grant of FL-III licence to

the petitioner. It is nobody's case that the petitioner has not otherwise

complied with the requirements of law for issuance of an FL-III licence.

6. In the premises, the impugned order of the Superintendent,

State Excise cannot be sustained. The Superintendent ought to have followed

the order of the State Minister and granted FL-III licence to the petitioner.

Rule is, accordingly, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the order

of the Superintendent of State Excise dated 6 th October, 2016 and directing

the Superintendent of State Excise and Collector to issue FL-III licence to the

petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own

costs.

JUDGE

RRaut..