Dismissed

M/S. Lahori Wine Shop, Thr. Proprietor, Maya Pralhad Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary (State Excise), Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC29 Jan 2021WP/521/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the suspension of the petitioner's liquor licence. The Court held that Section 54 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 grants power to suspend licences and pre-hearing is not mandated, especially to prohibit unauthorized activities.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed. No costs.

M/S. Lahori Wine Shop, Thr. Proprietor, Maya… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

Order

2901wp521.21

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 521/2021.

¶6

M/s. Lahori Wine Shop through its Proprietor, Maya Pralhad Sharma, Aged about 60 years, Occc – Business, resident of Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Indora Chowk, Nagpur. ... Petitioner. - VERSUS- 1.State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, (State Excise), Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2.The Collector, . Civil Lines, Nagpur. … Respondents. ….. Shri S.P. Bodalkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents. …..

¶7

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 29 JANUARY 2021.

Order

2901wp521.21

P.C.

Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.

¶13

By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Collector, Nagpur dated 20 January 2020, suspending the licence issued to the Petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.

¶14

There are no detail in this petition as to when was the licence issued, what is the serial number or for what purpose the same was issued. We have been orally informed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the licence was a FL-II licence issued in the year 1986.

¶15

By order dated 20 January 2020, a notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Collector under Section 54 of the Act of 1949, wherein it was stated that on 24 December 2020, while patrolling, it was found that unauthorisedly liquor was being removed from the commercial establishment of the Petitioner. Statement of the Manager of the Petitioners’ establishment was recorded and the statement revealed that such activity is being carried out regularly. On this premise a notice came to be issued under Section 54[1][c] of the Act of 1949, as to why the licence of the Petitioner should not be cancelled/suspended, and the Petitioner was called upon to submit explanation within 15 days.

¶16

The Collector recorded that on perusal of police

Order

2901wp521.21

report and the material in the report, which established collaboration between the Petitioner and certain anti social elements, the licence is being suspended for 21 days.

¶21

The Act of 1949 provides for an appeal. Further a show cause notice for cancellation is issued calling upon the Petitioner to submit his explanation, wherein the Petitioner can put forth his case on merits. This Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the order suspending the licence is without jurisdiction and in breach of principles of natural justice.

¶22

As regards the order being without jurisdiction, the contentions cannot be accepted as Section 54 of the Act of 1949 expressly grants power to cancel and suspends the licence and permits. As regards suspension of licence is concerned, bare perusal of this provision does not mandate a pre-hearing nor any decision construing this power under Section 54 in this manner has been shown to us. There could be cases where immediate suspension to prohibit further unauthorized activities is warranted. In these circumstances, it may be counterproductive to give pre-hearing before suspending the licence. In the present case, the order refers to a police report and information regarding the association with anti social elements and it is the justification for placing an immediate restraint.

¶23

The contention of the Petitioner that having once given time to file reply, the licence could not have been

Order

2901wp521.21

suspended, since notice was issued for suspension. It is not possible for us to agree with this submission. The notice was for cancellation and pending the decision on the cancellation in view of the circumstances referred thereto, power of suspension has been exercised, in which we do not find any error.

¶28

It was then sought to be contended by the Petitioner that on merits such power could not have been exercised, as there is no such material against the Petitioner. For challenging the order on merits, the Petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under the Act. Further the Petitioner will have an opportunity to give his say to the show cause notice.

¶29

In these circumstances no interference is warranted.

¶30

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶31

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)

¶32

Rgd

¶33

Digitally signed Rakesh by RakeshDhuriya Date: Dhuriya 2021.02.05 10:21:44 +0530

M/S. Lahori Wine Shop, Thr. Proprietor, Maya Pralhad Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary (State Excise), Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Lahori Wine Shop, Thr. Proprietor, Maya Pralhad Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary (State Excise), Mumbai and Another

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

M/S. Maa Narmada Construction, Nagpur through Partner Shri. Rudrangad Barkusing Chauhan Vs State of Maha. Thr. Minister of Soil and Water Conservation, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

M/S. Ashoka Safe Deposit Vaulet Company, Vs Adminstrator, Samta Shahakar and 6 Ors.

Waman S/O Sudam Meshram Vs the Accountant General, Nagpur through Senior Accounts Officer and Others

Bhoiraja Matsya Vyavsay Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Thr. President, Ganesh Narayanrao Awzade and Another Vs State of Mah., Thr. Sec., Agri. Dairy Development, Animal Husbandary and Fisheries Deptt.,and Oth

Macchindranath Fishery Co-Operative Society Ltd. Thr. Vice President Shri. Sambhaji Kawanpure Vs the Regional Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries and Others

Annabhau Sathe Education Institution, through Its Secretary, Shri Devidasrao K. Jadhao Vs State of Maharashtra, Throughits Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Mumbai