Disposed

Shashikant Chaganrao Huse v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC16 Jan 2017WP/334/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioner's liquor license. The High Court granted the stay of the impugned order pending the appeal's decision and directed the Commissioner to decide it expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on the impugned cancellation order pending appeal; direction to respondent to decide appeal expeditiously.

Shashikant Chaganrao Huse Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(1)W.P. No. 0334 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 0334 of 2017

¶4

District : Aurangabad

¶5

Shashikant Chaganrao Huse,
Age : 30 years,
Occupation : Business,
Proprietor of
M/s. Aishwarya Beer Shopee,
Bajajnagar, Waluj, Aurangabad,
R/o. Bajajnagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶6

versus

¶7

1.The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Commissioner
for State Excise,
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai.

¶8

2.The Collector
(State Excise Department),
Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶9

...........

¶10

Mr. Vishnu B. Madan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. A.S. Shinde, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 and 02.

¶12

...........

¶13

CORAM : V.M. KANADE &
 SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 16TH JANUARY 2017

¶14

ORAL ORDER :

¶15

Heard.

¶16

(2)W.P. No. 0334 of 2017

¶17

02.The petitioner's FL/BR-II license was
cancelled on the that the petitioner did not verify
whether the customers who purchase liquor have valid
permit with them.

¶18

03.The petitioner has preferred an appeal
against the said order in November 2016. The
grievance of the petitioner is that neither his
appeal is decided nor his application for interim
relief has been considered by respondent no.01 -
Commissioner of State Excise. By the present
petition, the petitioner has sought direction to
respondent no.01 that the appeal preferred by him be
decided expeditiously.

¶19

04.That being only relief claimed by the
petitioner, we are of the view that till the appeal
is decided, the impugned order will have to be
stayed.

¶20

05.We direct respondent no.01 - Commissioner of
State Excise to decide the petitioner's appeal
expeditiously and till that time, the impugned order
is stayed.

¶21

06.With the above directions, the Writ Petition
is disposed of.

¶22

...........

¶23

puranik / WP334.17

Shashikant Chaganrao Huse v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Chaganrao Huse v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Dnyanoba Tulshiram Jadhav Vs Pandurang Rajaram Hiramane and Others

Safa Education Society Vazirabad Nanded through Its Secretary Siddi Ateeq Ahmed Siddi Ismail Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vidynath Urban Co-Operative Bank. Vs the State of Maharsahtra and Others.

Arun Bhimrao Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rahul Damodhar Karkhele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashwini Kisanrao Bhosale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thro Principal Secretary and Others