Disposed

Kanta Navnath Lanke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Nov 2019PIL/125/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain a PIL contesting a resolution to open a country liquor shop in a village. The Court held that an efficacious alternate remedy existed via a pending appeal before the appellate authority. It directed the Commissioner to treat the representation as an appeal and decide it within sixteen weeks.

What did the court decide?

High Court directed the Commissioner to treat the representation as an appeal and decide it within sixteen weeks from the date of approaching.

Kanta Navnath Lanke Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

125.19pil

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.125 OF 2019

¶5

Smt. Kanta w/o Navnath Lanke, Age:37 years, Occu: Agriculturist and Household, R/o: At post Nighoj, Tal. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Home and Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶8

The Commissioner, Commissionerate, State Excise (M.S.), 2^nd Floor, Old Custom House, Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Mumbai

¶9

The District Superintendent of Excise, State Excise Department, Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar

¶10

The Collector, Collector Office, Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar

¶11

The Group Grampanchayat, Nighoj, Through its Gramsevak, At Post : Nighoj, Tal. Parner, Dist. Ahmendagar

¶12

..RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr Ajinkya Kale, Advocate holding for Mr S. B. Talekar, Advocate for petitioner;

¶14

Mrs M. A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶15

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 21st November, 2019

125.19pil

(2)

ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶21

It is the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that in village Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar, an attempt was made to open a country liquor shop. In a serious opposition, the Grampanchayat, by 2/3rd majority, opposed the opening of liquor shop and resultantly, the shop could not be opened in the village. It is the allegation of the petitioner that in connivance with certain members of the Grampanchayat, the shop owner prompted the Grampanchayat to pass a subsequent resolution, thereby a decision was taken to allow the shop owner to run a country liquor shop in the said village. The further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is, there is no such provision of second resolution and inspite of this, the resolution was passed.

¶22

On perusal of the material placed on record, it reveals that the matter was submitted to the Collector, Ahmednagar with necesary opinions/reports of the Excise authorities. The Collector, Ahmendagar was also apprised about certain Government Resolutions, whereby the Grampanchayat is permitted to consider the issue of permission to open a country liquor shop in the village by taking up appropriate resolution. The report was also submitted through the Superintendent

¶23

125.19pil (3)

¶24

of Police, Ahmednagar and a communication was forwarded through the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. The Collector, on submission of the proposal through the Superintendent, State Excise Department, Ahmednagar, passed the order, thereby recording his no objection to start the country liquor shop under the requisite licence. Considering these facts, as they are on record, it can safely be stated that the order passed by the Collector is an appellable order and any person, being aggrieved by such order can avail the remedy of filing appeal challenging the order passed by the Collector.

¶25

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per his instructions, the representation is already made before the appellate authority, but the same is pending without there being any progress in the matter. If that is so, we see no reason to entertain the present public interest litigation, when already an alternate and efficacious remedy is availed.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain the present public interest litigation. We further state that the interest of justice can be served by issuing a direction to the concerned authority to decide the representation within a stipulated period, in view of the statement made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the representation is already made before the appellate authority.

¶27

125.19pil (4)

¶28

Accordingly, the Commissioner may consider the representation as an appeal. In case, the Commissioner is of an opinion that certain more documents are necessary for deciding the appeal, he may call upon the representationist to provide the necessary documents and decide the appeal as per law as early as possible and not later than sixteen weeks from the date, on which the representationist approaches the authority, apprising the order of this Court.

¶29

With the aforesaid directions, the public interest litigation is disposed of.

¶30

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶31

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶32

sjk

Kanta Navnath Lanke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanta Navnath Lanke 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

Mr. Raja Narasimhan and Anr. Vs Mah. Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Deepak Nathani Vs Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Satish Pradhan and Ors. Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Hoiusing and Urban Affiars( Summons Served Gp) and or

Indar Bhagirath Nagare Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Ramesh Janikram Bharate Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principle Secretary Rural Development Dept Mumbai and Others

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Kartik Mohanbhai Patel Vs Mr. Mohan Sanjibhai Delkar and Ors.

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Afshan Anjum Mahammad Farid through Father Mahammad Farid Mahamad Husain Vs Pawan Vishnudas Chandak

Nilavati Dagdu Jadhav Vs the Housing Development Finance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Jayshree Yashwant Ghankute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jayshree Vishwanath Bhale and Others Vs I a Kundan the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Women and Child Development Department and or

Mohd. Yusuf Mohd. Ibrahim Vs Sushil Khodwekar and Others

Bhima Mahadeo Kedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others