Bombay High Court
Ramesh Reddy Muttyamreddy ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 October, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
919.RA.92.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO.92 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4083 OF 2019
RAMESH REDDY MUTTYAMREDDY MUTTALWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.P. Latange h/f. Mr. P.U. Gujrathi
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. A.A. Jagatkar
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6: Mr. V.R. Dhorde
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 27.10.2021
PER COURT :
The applicant is the original petitioner seeking a review of the
judgment and order dated 01.09.2021 whereby this Court dismissed his Writ
Petition No.4083/2019.
2. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the order
suffers from an error apparent on the the face of record. He would submit
that though the reference has been made to the circulars of the year 1989
and 1994 there is no reference to the circular dated 20.08.1996 which, in
supersession of the earlier circular permits transfer of a CL-III licence during
the life time of a licence holder. There is no reference made in the judgment
to Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973. The Appeal
preferred by the petitioner's father who was the original licence holder itself
919.RA.92.21.odt
was not maintainable. The fraud alleged by the father could not be
established because of his demise. Even the Appeal preferred by the father
was beyond the limitation. No reference was made to the order passed by
the learned Commissioner of State Excise dated 25.11.2016 in Appeal
No.18/2011. Had there been a reference to all these facts and
circumstances, this Court would have come to a different conclusion. The
judgment and order needs to be reviewed.
3. I have carefully gone through the Review Petition and the
judgment and order as also the papers from the Writ Petition.
4. In substance the dispute was about transfer of a CL-III licence
under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and the Rules and
the Circulars issued by the Government from time to time pursuant to the
enabling provision contained in Section 139 of the Maharashtra Prohibition
Act. The petitioner is one of the sons of the deceased. On a request of his
father in whose name the CL-III licence was standing, initially it was
transferred in the name of the petitioner. The father subsequently raised a
dispute by alleging fraud. Pursuant to his such dispute a fresh inquiry was
conducted but unfortunately he died even before any final decision could be
reached about the alleged fraud.
5. Though the circular dated 1996 apparently in supersession of
the earlier two circulars permits transfer of CL-III licence during the life time
of a licence holder, the scenario would not change. As can be seen from the
judgment under review, the petition has been dismissed for variety of
919.RA.92.21.odt
reasons and not only on the ground that the licence could not have been
transferred during the life time of the deceased.
6. In paragraph No. 9, it has been specifically demonstrated as to
how even otherwise, independent of the dispute, the petitioner was not
entitled to the transfer of CL-III licence. It was specifically pointed out as to
how pursuant to Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules and the
circular dated 20.08.1996, since already a CL-III licence was standing in the
name of his wife and also as he was a partner of a business in whose name
another CL-III licence was issued he was not eligible to get any other CL-III
licence.
7. Again it is erroneous to state that no reference was made in the
judgment and order under review to the circular dated 20.08.1996 or Rule
28 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules when a reference to both these
can be found in paragraph No.9 as well as 11.
8. Having considered the matter from all the aforementioned
angles, in my view there is no sufficient and cogent reason to undertake
review of the order. There is no formal defect. The Review Application is
dismissed in limine.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
