Allowed

Avinash Balkrishna Kulkarni and Another v. the State of Maharashatra and Others.

Bombay HC24 Oct 2013RA/165/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted review allowing reconsideration of an order passed in absence of counsel. It remanded the matter to the Collector to decide rival claims between parties and the original licensee after hearing them, issuing directions for future hearings.

What did the court decide?

Review allowed; order dated 26th March 2012 recalled; Writ Petition restored; matter remanded to Collector for decision after hearing parties.

Avinash Balkrishna Kulkarni and Another Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

(1) RA 165/2013

¶3

REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 165 OF 2013 IN WP/1055/1992

¶4

AVINASH BALKRISHNA KULKARNI AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHATRA AND OTHERS.

¶5

Advocate for Applicants :Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh AGP for Respondents:M.N.Nerlikar Advocate for Respondent no.4 : Mr. A.H.Kasliwal

¶6

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: October 24, 2013

¶7

PER COURT :-

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel points to the order under review dated 26th March, 2012, recorded in Writ Petition No.1055/1992 passed in absence of both the Counsels, but on merits.

¶10

Mr.Deshmukh submits, this Court, in paragraph no.4 referred to partnership deed which is in fact dated 28th Oct., 1981, showing share of original licensee Suganchand Parekh to be 51 per cent and of Avinash to be 49 per cent. However, one more partnership deed dated 31.3.1986 which has reduced share of Suganchand to be 34 per cent, is not considered by this Court.

¶11

Mr.Kasliwal for the respondent in the application disputes genuineness of the subsequent partnership deed dated

¶12

agp/-

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

31.3.1986.

¶15

Without dwelling upon rival contentions as to subsequent partnership deed, the fact remains that Counsel were not heard and an opportunity is required to be given to them to canvass even in terms of the subsequent partnership deed.

¶16

Hence, order dated 26th March, 2012 is recalled. Review allowed accordingly.

¶17

Writ Petition No.1055/1992 is put to original position. Heard. Rule was issued on 1.4.1993. Heard finally.

¶18

During the course of submissions, several aspects were argued by both the learned Counsel. Mr. Deshmukh claims that subsequent amendment in the Rules from Government of Maharashtra makes the position of petitioner more vivid and impressive for getting license transferred in the name of the petitioner.

¶19

The issue in respect of eligibility or ineligibility of petitioners entitlement shall have to be decided by the learned Collector in terms of statutory provisions, who is competent authority. Appellate authority is Commissioner of Excise. Consequently, the communications dated 23rd March, 1992, 31st March, 1992, 22nd April, 1992 addressed to the petitioner and the respondent by learned Collector are directed to be reconsidered

¶20

agp/-

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶22

on merits by affording opportunity to the parties to the litigation or the original licensee. All points between the parties are kept open.

¶23

The representations made by Suganchand Parekh to the learned Collector or the Excise authorities shall also be considered in proper perspective at the time of giving audience to them.

¶24

The parties to appear before the learned Collector, Jalgaon, on 12th Nov., 2013, after Deepavali. Parties shall not seek unreasonable accommodation. The learned Collector to decide the rival claims upto 28th Feb., 2014.

¶25

Writ Petition No.1055/1992 disposed of Rule discharged. No costs.

¶26

( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. )

¶27

agp/-

Avinash Balkrishna Kulkarni and Another v. the State of Maharashatra and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Balkrishna Kulkarni and Another v. the State of Maharashatra and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alkarani Pradnya Kamble Vs Dr. Pradnya Taterao Kamble and Anr.

Bittu @ Anil Chimaji Lashkare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Baban Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sk. Mukhtyar @ Mukhtya Hatti Sk. Yusuf Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ananda @ Anil Marotrao Hambarde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash Balkrishna Kulkarni and Others. Vs the State of Maharashatra and Others.