Ishwaribai Tahelram Fulwani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2026 Latest Caselaw 2233 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ishwaribai Tahelram Fulwani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 27 February, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:10071
                                                                          wp8330-2006 with wp2966-2007-J.doc


                             AGK
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                    WRIT PETITION NO.8330 OF 2006
     ATUL                    Ishwaribai Tahemram Fulwani,
     GANESH
     KULKARNI                Age about 63 years, residing at
      Digitally signed by
      ATUL GANESH
      KULKARNI
                             Shivaji Nagar No.1, House No.365,
      Date: 2026.02.27
      12:03:49 +0530
                             Manmad, District Nashik, AND
                             carrying business under CL-III
                             Licence No.203 at Dr. Ambedkar Road,
                             Near RMS Office, Manmad,
                             District Nasik                                    ... Petitioner
                                                           V/s.
                                1. State of Maharashtra,
                                   through Principal Secretary, Home
                                   (State Excise), Mantralaya,
                                   Mumbai - 400 032.
                                2. Ganesh Naik,
                                   Minister of State Excise, Mantralaya,
                                   Mumbai 400 032
                                3. The Commissioner of State Excise,
                                   Old Custom House, Mumbai 400 023
                                4. The Collector of Nasik,
                                   State Excise Department, Nasik
                                5. Tharumal Kishinchand Fulwani,
                                   CL-III License No.109, Dr. Ambedkar
                                   Road, Manmad, District Nashik               ... Respondents
                                                                WITH
                                                    WRIT PETITION NO.2966 OF 2007
                             Geeta Pardesi, President of Deshi
                             Daru Dukan Virodhi Kruti Samiti,
                             Ward No.27, Manke Compound,
                             Manmad, District Nashik                           ... Petitioner



                                                                  1
                            ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2026                ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:40:53 :::
                                                  wp8330-2006 with wp2966-2007-J.doc




                                V/s.

      1. Tharumal K Phulwani, of Nasik
         Adult, carrying on business from
         Manke Compound, Manmad,
         District Nashik
      1


      2. The Collector of Nasik,
         State Excise Department, Nasik
      3. The Commissioner, State Excise
         having his office at Old Custom
         House, Mumbai.
      4. State of Maharashtra                         ... Respondents

 Mr. Santosh L. Patil with Mr. Arvind K. Tiwari and Ms.
 Shraddha Kadam for the petitioner in WP/8330/2006.
 Mrs. Gauri Kishor Jadhav i/by Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi
 for the petitioner in WP/2966/2007.
 Ms. Veena Thadhani with Ms. Rutuja Gaikwad for
 respondent No.5 in WP/8330/2006 & for respondent
 No.1 in WP/2966/2007.
 Ms. Kavita Solunke, Additional G.P. with Mr. Bapusaheb
 Dahiphale, AGP for respondent Nos.2 to 4-State.

                               CORAM            : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                               RESERVED ON      : FEBRUARY 12, 2026.

                               PRONOUNCED ON    : FEBRUARY 27, 2026

 JUDGMENT:

1. The present writ petition challenges the order passed in revision whereby the direction issued by the Collector requiring Respondent No.5 to shift his licensed premises was set aside. The

wp8330-2006 with wp2966-2007-J.doc

core issue that arises for consideration is narrow. It is whether the Collector, after having once granted permission for shifting of the CL-III licence in the year 1997, could again reopen the matter and direct shifting of the same licence by order dated 2 September 2006 on the ground that the distance between two shops was less than 200 metres.

2. The factual background is largely undisputed. The licence of Respondent No.5 was permitted to be shifted to Manmad by order dated 17 May 1997 after verification by the competent authority. Thereafter, several proceedings took place on different grounds including alleged breaches, suspension, cancellation and appeals. In proceedings arising from cancellation of licence, the matter was remanded and a committee was constituted to measure the distance between the petitioner's shop and the shop of Respondent No.5. The committee recorded the distance as 177.75 metres. On the basis of this report, the Collector directed Respondent No.5 to shift the shop or keep it closed. This order became the subject matter of revision and was set aside by the State Government, leading to the present petition.

3. The petitioner submits that the distance requirement under Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 is mandatory. According to the petitioner, the committee measurement clearly establishes violation of Rule 24(5). It is argued that the authorities failed to act despite earlier complaints and that Respondent No.5 cannot take advantage of an illegality. It is further contended that law and order concerns existed and that the State Government decided the revision without proper hearing.

wp8330-2006 with wp2966-2007-J.doc

The petitioner also argues that once violation of statutory distance is established, the Collector was justified in directing shifting of the shop.

4. On the other hand, Respondent No.5 submits that the licence was shifted in the year 1997 after due inquiry and approval by the Collector. The approval was granted only after the authority was satisfied that the distance conditions were fulfilled. According to Respondent No.5, repeated attempts were made thereafter to close the shop on different grounds and the present dispute is another such attempt. It is contended that once the Collector had taken a final decision permitting shifting, he could not reopen the same issue years later in the absence of statutory power of review. Respondent No.5 relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sau. Anjali Arvind Aswani and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No. 6445 of 2024, dated 28th January, 2026, which affirms the earlier view that the Collector has no power to review his own order.

5. The petitioner relies upon the judgment in Saraswatibai Gangagoud Anantwar (Since Deceased) Through her L.Rs. Shivaji Gangagoud Anantwar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2650 to contend that grant of licence is an administrative function and that the Collector can correct his own decision. This submission requires careful consideration. However, the legal position stands clarified by the Division Bench judgment relied upon by Respondent No.5. The Division Bench, after considering earlier precedent, has clearly held that the Collector does not

wp8330-2006 with wp2966-2007-J.doc

possess inherent power of review and cannot on his own reconsider a decision once taken. This Court is bound by the view taken by the Division Bench. The principle flowing from that judgment is that unless the statute expressly confers power of review, an administrative authority cannot reopen a concluded decision merely because it later forms a different opinion.

6. Applying this principle to the present case, the order dated 15 May 1997 permitting shifting of licence was a concluded decision. The Collector, by directing shifting again in the year 2006 solely on the basis of reassessment of distance, effectively reopened and reconsidered his earlier approval. The exercise undertaken by the Collector was not an independent fresh grant but a reconsideration of the same permission already granted. Such an exercise, in substance, amounts to review. In the absence of statutory power permitting review, the Collector could not have passed the order dated 2 September 2006.

7. The submission of the petitioner that the distance was found to be less than 200 metres does not alter this legal position. Even assuming that later measurements indicated a different distance, the proper course would have been action under specific statutory provisions, if available, and not reopening of a concluded permission by the same authority in the guise of administrative correction. The legality of an order must be tested with reference to the power available to the authority. Once the authority lacks power of review, the correctness or otherwise of the measurement becomes secondary.

wp8330-2006 with wp2966-2007-J.doc

8. The argument regarding absence of hearing before the revisional authority has also been considered. The record indicates that the revision authority examined the legal issue regarding competence of the Collector. Since the order of the Collector itself was without jurisdiction in view of the binding precedent, no prejudice is shown to have been caused that would warrant interference under Article 227.

9. The reliance placed by the petitioner on law and order issues and earlier complaints also does not advance the case. Those aspects formed part of earlier proceedings and cannot confer a power of review where none exists in law. Equally, allegations exchanged between parties regarding political influence, change of entrance, or business rivalry do not determine the legal issue before the Court, which is confined to the competence of the Collector to revisit his earlier decision.

10. The revisional authority, while allowing the revision, has essentially held that after passage of considerable time and in the absence of power of review, the Collector could not direct shifting of the shop. This conclusion is consistent with the law laid down by the Division Bench. No jurisdictional error or perversity is shown which would justify interference in supervisory jurisdiction.

11. In view of the binding legal position that the Collector has no power to review his own order granting permission for shifting of licence, the order dated 2 September 2006 cannot be sustained. The revisional authority was justified in setting aside that order. The petition, therefore, fails.

wp8330-2006 with wp2966-2007-J.doc

12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)