Dismissed

Yadav Piraji Kolnure and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC26 Sept 2019PIL/114/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original public interest litigation challenging the proposed transfer of a country liquor shop from Hanegaon to Ramtapur, the Court held the petition premature as the competent authorities had not yet decided the application and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation juris was dismissed in its original form as the matter was premature.

Yadav Piraji Kolnure and Others Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

909 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. 114 OF 2019

¶3

YADAV PIRAJI KOLNURE AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶4

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. A.H. Kasliwal
AGP for Respondents State : Mr. S.G. Sangle

¶6

...

¶7

 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
 AVINASH G.GHAROTE, JJ.

¶8

 DATED : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2019.

¶9

ORAL ORDER:

¶10

Heard Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the

¶11

petitioner at length.

¶12

2.The submission of the learned counsel is that

¶13

the petitioners have raised grievance in the nature of

¶14

public interest, by raising an objection along with
other residents for transfer of the country liquor
shop.

¶15

3.Perusal of documents placed on record clearly
show that request is made to the Superintendent of the
State Excise for shifting of country liquor shop from

¶16

2 pil114.19

¶17

the place known as village Hanegaon, Taluka Degloor,
District Nanded to village Ramtapur, Taluka Degloor,
District Nanded. Admittedly, this application is
pending before the Competent Authority for its
decision. Now, the documents placed on record by the
petitioners themselves show that a resolution was
passed by the Grampanchyat, Ramtapur unanimously in
favour of shifting of the country liquor shop, to
village Ramtapur. Not only this, necessary
certificates are also issued by the Grampanchyat,
Ramtapur.

¶18

4. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the

¶19

petitioners submits that the petitioners along with
other twelve persons and other residents filed
representations to the Superintendent of the State
Excise, Nanded on 22.7.2019. Perusal of the
representations show that those were submitted to the
Collector on 14.7.2019. The representations state
that those are submitted by the applicants, whereas

¶20

3 pil114.19

¶21

the only signatory to this representations is the
petitioner No. 1. If the representation dated
22.7.2019 submitted to the Superintendent is perused,
it shows that there are 14 applicants, who have
submitted the same and the population of the village
Ramtapur is 864, which is revealed from the
certificate placed on record by the petitioner
himself, which certificate is issued by the Gram
Sevak, Ramtapur and which is as per the Census of
2011.

¶22

5.Be that as it may, we see no reason to
entertain this petition at this stage on the ground
that the petition is premature. The authorities i.e.
the Superintendent, State Excise and the Collector,
are yet to apply their mind on the application
received for shifting of the license and the
objection by the respective authorities, namely, the
Superintendent of State Excise and the Collector,
Nanded. There is no reason for us at this stage to

¶23

proceed on the premise that these authorities would
not act as per the provisions of law and more
particularly the provisions of the Maharashtra
Country Liquor Rules, 1973 as applicable.

¶24

Considering all these aspects we are unable to
entertain the petition. Accordingly, the Public
Interest Litigation is dismissed at the threshold.

¶25

 (AVINASH G. GHAROTE) (PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGEJUDGE

¶26

mahajan/

Yadav Piraji Kolnure and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadav Piraji Kolnure and Others v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Krishna Kumar Agarwal Vs the Ministry of Environment and Forest, through Its Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and Othe

Krishna Kumar Agrawal Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Environment, New Delhi and Others

Dinesh Manohar Shedame Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi and Others

Mirza Imran Ahemad Beg Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Deelip Tukaram Dhotre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammad Mushiroddin Mohd. Gausoddin Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Amar Asaram Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajaram Dhondiba Havale and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajaram Dhondiram Havale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Anantrao Havale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Alias Sanjay Sharad Walhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prakash Pandharinath Rane and Others Vs the Superintendending Engineer Public Works Department Jalgaon and Others

Sayed Faqruddin Sayed Shahabudin Vs Dnyanoba Bhanapure and Another