Bombay High Court
Vishnu Arun Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 30 March, 2022
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Dige
6499.21wp etc
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO.6499 OF 2021
PRAMILA JAGDISH JAISWAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7198 OF 2021
KAVITA VITTHAL AKKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6707 OF 2021
VISHNU S/O ARUN GAIKWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7615 OF 2021
RAM S/O ASHRUBA JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6705 OF 2021
CHANDRAKALA W/O DILIPRAO GAIKWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr V. S. Undre, Advocate for petitioners in WP Nos.6499/2021
and 7198/2021
Mr A. R. Gaikwad, Advocate for petitioners in WP Nos.
6705/2021, 7615/2021 & 6707/2021
Mr D. R. Kale, G.P. for respondents/State
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 20:49:09 :::
6499.21wp etc
(2)
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 30th March, 2022
PER COURT:
1. All these petitioners are identically placed with the
petitioners before the learned Division Bench of this Court at the
Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.2873/2021 and connected
matters (Hotel and Restaurant Association (Western India) & ors.
Vs. Commissioner, State Excise, Maharashtra). By the Judgment
dated 29/03/2022, the learned Division Bench has made the
following observations :-
"24. Unfortunately, there is a limit beyond which
comparisons are simply odious. A hotel or restaurant
serving foreign liquor can hardly be compared to a
development and planning authority under the MRTP
Act.
25. The learned Advocate General submits that 90%
of the likely placed FL-III license holders have
already paid the revised license fee as prescribed in
the impugned notification. He tenders a chart which
we take on record. This is a listing by district. Of a
total of 17,605 licenses, fully 16,683 licensees have
paid one hundred percent, i.e. the full license fee for
2021-2022. Another 922 have paid 50% (as of the
date of this hearing). They are expected to pay the
rest before 31st March 2022. We find it impossible to
believe that the Petitioners did not know this. They
6499.21wp etc
have not disclosed it. That chart is appended to this
order.
26. The Petitions are entirely without merit. We
express our gravest displeasure at the manner in
which they were pressed, knowing full-well of the
pressures on this Court with a massive increase in
our roster caseloads. There are hundreds of Petitions
by individuals, societies and so on pending. They
have waited their turn. Their cases are now delayed
by this self-indulgent and self-serving foreign liquor
vending hotels, in whose petition there is not a shred
of merit, and some of whose contentions border on
the outrageous. Relevant material has been
suppressed from the Petition, including the various
concessions granted by the State Government and the
fact of the number of similarly placed licensees who
have paid.
27. We reject both Petitions of 2021. The interim
orders are vacated. The Interim Applications are
disposed of.
28. But we believe it is time to send a firm signal that
the time of the court is not to be taken for granted,
nor should there be any attempt to gamble on
litigation. When a court's time is squandered on
frivolous matters, there will be consequences.
29. There will therefore be an order of costs against
the eight Petitioners who are Associations (i.e.,
Petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10) in Writ
Petition No. 2873 of 2021, and the 1st Petitioner
association in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 2021 in the
amount of Rs.1 lakh each, i.e. Rs. 9 lakhs in all, to be
paid into the Chief Minister's Relief Fund within two
weeks from today.
6499.21wp etc
30. There is an application to continue the previous
ad-interim order for six weeks. It is submitted that if
this is not done, the Petitioners will instantly be
defaulters because the period in question is 2021-
2022. We decline to extend the relief because that
would give the Petitioners an unfair advantage over
others similarly placed and would carve out for them
alone a six-week time-extension. We have already
held that there is no substance whatsoever in the any
of the submissions made by the Petitioners and that
these Petitions are entirely speculative. The
Petitioners cannot claim to have been unaware of the
possibility of them being in default. This is the price
of unwise gambling on litigation. And, moreover, it
was the Petitioners who insisted on an urgent priority
hearing specifically citing the 31st March deadline as
a ground for urgency. Surely the Petitioners could
not have taken it for granted that further sops would
come their way or that they were entitled as a matter
of right to more time."
2. In view of the above, these petitioners seek liberty to
withdraw these petitions with the statement being made on
instructions that, they would pay the renewal charges/fees till 3.00
p.m. on 31/03/2022.
3. In view of the above, these petitions are dismissed, as
withdrawn.
4. In the event, the renewal charges are not paid, the
6499.21wp etc
Competent Authority would refuse renewal to those petitioners,
who do not deposit the charges.
(S. G. DIGE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
