Bombay High Court
Smt. Pushpabai W/O Balaji Bagde ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 17 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp38.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 38/2018
Smt. Pushpabai W/o Balaji Bagde,
Through its partner Shriniwas Kolawar,
Aged about 41 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Tah. Paoni,
Dist. Bhandara ... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Department of State Excise,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The District Collector,
Bhandara
3] Superintendent of State Excise,
Dist. Bhandara
4] The Excise Inspector,
Department of State Excise,
Bhandara
5] Superintendent of Police,
Dist. Bhandara
6] Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Tahsil-Paoni, Dist. Bhandara ... RESPONDENTS
===================================
Shri D.V. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner
Miss M. Naik, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 6
===================================
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:05:50 :::
Judgment 2 wp38.2018.odt
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
th
DATED :- 17 JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] The country liquor shop which is now run by the
petitioner is run since 1986, the license was granted in 1986 and
renewed regularly. This license is suspended by the impugned
order. The reason for suspension of the license of the petitioner is
that the sale of the petitioner has taken leap, and the accused in
certain crimes booked for the offences under the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, 1949 have given the statements that bulk
purchases of country liquor are made by them from the shop run
by the petitioner. According to the respondents-authorities, the
license granted in favour of the petitioner is for retail sale, and
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon her
explanation but she failed to give any reply and as the enquiry in
the matter is in progress, it is deemed fit to suspend the license of
the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:05:50 :::
Judgment 3 wp38.2018.odt
3] It is undisputed that the shop of the petitioner is closed
since 27/12/2017 i.e. from the date on which the impugned order
is issued. As the enquiry is still in progress, in my view, it would
not be appropriate to delve into the rival submissions however,
considering the fact that the license is granted in 1986 and is
renewed regularly and further considering the fact that the shop of
the petitioner is closed for almost about three weeks, I pass the
following order:-
O R D E R
1] The respondents-authorities may conduct
the enquiry against the petitioner however, the order
suspending the license of the petitioner is quashed.
2] The respondents-authorities are directed to
permit the petitioner to run the business as per the
license granted to her subject to further orders which
may be passed on completion of the enquiry.
Judgment 4 wp38.2018.odt
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Ansari
