Disposed

Dorabjee and Company Pvt.Ltd. v. the Commissioner State Excise and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2016WP/1236/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, noting that the petitioner's initial challenge regarding a non-obstante clause was already answered in a prior order. The court observed that the petitioner has no penalty under Rule 4 of the Potable Liquor Rules and left any future challenge to that rule open for a separate petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dorabjee and Company Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Commissioner State… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 1236-2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1236 OF 2006

¶4

Dorabjee and Company Pvt. Ltd. V/s

¶5

The Commissioner, State Excise & Anr.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mrs. Veena B. Thadani for the petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State.

¶9

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.

¶10

DATE : 13^th DECEMBER 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Initially a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the papers and proceedings relating to the impugned non-obstante clause contained in the notification dated 7^th January 2006 issued by the Commissioner of State Excise as being ultra vires the provisions of Rule 25(1) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules was the subject matter of challenge especially contending that they are ultra vires the powers conferred on the Commissioner of State Excise under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Periodicity and Fees for Grant, Renewal or Continuance of Licence) Rules, 1996 (for short “Potable Liquor Rules”). Now the petitioner intends to amend the petition challenging the very Rule 4 of Potable Liquor Rules which was relied upon by the petitioner at the initial stage with reference to prayer at para 39(a).

1 of 2

ABS

WP 1236-2006

The contents of the entire writ petition do not indicate that the petitioner has any grievance with regard to Rule 4 of the Potable Liquor Rules. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that the notification issued was ultra vires Rule 4 of the Potable Liquor Rules, i.e. the powers conferred on the Commissioner of State Excise. In that view of the matter, the entire scenario changes since the very basis for the challenge is entirely different from what it was in the year 2006 when they filed the writ petition. Since the challenge to non-obstante clause in the Notification dated 7^th January 2006 is already answered by order dated 5^th August 2015 in Writ Petition No.5051 of 2004, we are of the opinion that nothing remains for us to consider in the matter. If the petitioner intends to challenge Rule 4 of the Potable Liquor Rules now, it is left open to it to do so by raising such challenge in a different writ petition.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.

¶18

(M.S. SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

2 of 2

¶20

ABS

Dorabjee and Company Pvt.Ltd. v. the Commissioner State Excise and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dorabjee and Company Pvt.Ltd. v. the Commissioner State Excise and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited Vs Mitc Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Indusind Bank Limited Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited Vs Champshi M Shah

Navnath Rambhau Devdare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandip Raghunath Patil Vs National Highways Authority of India and Ors.

Sandip Raghunath Patil Vs National Highways Authority of India and Ors.