Allowed

Snehalata Baliram Thakre v. the Collector of Nasik, State Excise Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2019WP/3150/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged suspension of liquor license due to alleged sale violation. Court held original punishment harsh, modified suspension period, and directed payment of composition fee.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders modified; suspension period reduced; composition fee of Rs. 51,000 directed to be paid. License deemed suspended for two months.

Snehalata Baliram Thakre Vs the Collector of Nasik… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(24) wp-3150.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3150 OF 2019

¶4

Snehalata Baliram Thakre	]
of Nasik, aged 54r years, Indian	]
inhabitant, occupation Business,	]
carrying on business of retail sale of country liquor at Mahakali Chowk,	] ]
CIDCO, District Nasik on the strength	]
of CL III Licence No.75	]..... Petitioner.

¶5

	Versus
1]	The Collector of Nasik,	]
	State Excise Department,	]
	District Nasik	]
		]
2]	The Commissioner State Excise,	]
	2^ndfloor, Old Customs House, Fort,	]
	Mumbai.	] ]
3]	The State of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai (Maharashtra State)	] ]...... Respondents.

¶6

Mrs. Veena Thadhani for the Petitioner. Mrs. P J Gavhane for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶7

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J DATE : 22^nd March 2019

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶9

1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Mrs. P J Gavhane, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 waives service for the said Respondents. By consent, taken up for final hearing and heard.

¶10

1 of 4

¶11

lgc

¶12

(24) wp-3150.19.doc

¶13

2 In my view, this Writ Petition can be disposed of at this stage

¶14

itself.

¶15

3 The Petitioner carries on the business of retail sale of country liquor at the addressed mentioned in the cause title above. The Petitioner has been granted a CL II license. On 04/09/2018 the Sub Inspector, State Excise, B-1 Division, District Nashik, visited the licensed premises of the Petitioner and found that a sealed bottle of Deshi Daru having MRP of Rs.52 was sold for Rs.65 without demanding liquor permit from the customer. During the said visit, the Sub Inspector found that the bar was not clean and board was not fixed at the entrance of the shop of the Petitioner. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 15/09/2018 to which the Petitioner replied on 19/10/2018 requesting therein to compound the act/offence of the Petitioner.

¶16

4 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Mrs. Veena Thadhani invited attention of this Court to the pleadings and the grounds taken in the Petition. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the alleged act/offence of the Petitioner is compoundable, however, the authorities below have not considered the circular dated 27/07/2001 and refused to compound the act/offence of the Petitioner and thereby imposed a harsh punishment by passing the orders of suspending the

¶17

2 of 4

¶18

lgc

¶19

(24) wp-3150.19.doc

¶20

license of the Petitioner for a period of three months, which is caused great hardship to the Petitioner. She further contended that the impugned orders have been passed without application of mind and require to be quashed and set aside.

¶21

5 The learned counsel for the Petitioner brought to my notice a number of orders passed under the similar circumstances where the authorities and in some of the cases this Court have taken the view that imposition of a composition fee was adequate punishment.

¶22

6 After having perused the material on record and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is harsh and requires modification. In the result, the impugned orders stand modified and the three months period of suspension of the license of the Petitioner is reduced to the period from 14/01/2019 till date i.e. 22/03/2019. In addition to the suspension of the license of the Petitioner from 14/01/2019 till 22/03/2019 the Petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.51,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand only) as composition fee within one week from today. The Petitioner's license shall be deemed to have been suspended between 14/01/2019 till 22/03/2019.

¶23

7 Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The

¶24

lgc

¶25

(24) wp-3150.19.doc

¶26

above Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶27

8 The learned AGP to communicate this order to the concerned officer through the office of the Government Pleader by fastest mode of communication.

¶28

[S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶29

4 of 4

¶30

lgc

Snehalata Baliram Thakre v. the Collector of Nasik, State Excise Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snehalata Baliram Thakre v. the Collector of Nasik, State Excise Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chilveri R. Krushna and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru CEO of Sra, Bandra E Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Punja Bhau Shirsath and Ors. Vs Prabhakar Baburao Shirsath and Ors.

Shri. Sanjay Chimanlal Mehta Vs the Dist. Dy. Registrar of Co-Op. Soc. -2 and Ors.

Kiran Mahadev Yepre Vs Asha Tanaji Kalbhor and Ors.

Pannalal Ramdulal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Madhukar Goving Pawar Vs Sonabai Baburao Gaikwad (Decd.) by Heirs