Allowed
Neelam Ganesh Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.
Bombay HCWP/2521/2024
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
927-wp2521-2024.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2521 OF 2024
ATUL GANESH KULKARNI
Digitally signed byATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2024.04.30 17:13:39 +0530
Neelam Ganesh Suryawanshi… Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.… Respondents
Mr. Vinayak R. Salokhe with Ms. Sampada Khanolkar
and Ms. Megha Jani for the petitioner.
Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State.
CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED:APRIL 30, 2024
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2.The petitioner is challenging an order passed by the
respondent No.1 confirming permanent cancellation of the
petitioner’s license granted under the provisions of the Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949.
3.The respondent No.3 by order dated 10 April 2023 granted
license in favour of the petitioner, subject to the conditions
enumerated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The
respondent No.3 based on complaint made by a Member of the
Legislative Council carried out inspection of the licensed premises
on 30 June 2023. Based on the inspection, the respondent No.3
1
927-wp2521-2024.doc
issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. After giving opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 by order dated 4
October 2023 cancelled petitioner’s FL-III license. The respondent
No.1 by the impugned order dated 5 February 2024 confirmed the
order of permanent cancellation.
4.On perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3, it
appears that the breaches alleged against the petitioner are
compoundable in nature. The petitioner has placed on record
orders passed by respondent No.3 and other authorities to indicate
that in relation to similar breaches, the authorities compounded
such breaches by imposing fine of Rs.50,000/- or suspension of
license for period of one month. However, in case of the petitioner,
based on subsequent inspection, petitioner’s license was
permanently cancelled. On perusal of the respondent No.3’s order,
it appears that in relation to the instance of second breach no
show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The second breach
alleged is in relation to change in interior of licensed premises and
sale of liquor without permit to the customer. Since second
instance referred in the order was not mentioned in the show-
cause notice, the respondent No.3 could not have cancelled the
petitioner’s license permanently. Moreover, considering nature of
breaches alleged in the show-cause notice and considering the fact
that the petitioner’s business is closed for last six months, in my
opinion, the impugned order cancelling petitioner’s license
permanently cannot be justified.
5. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
2
927-wp2521-2024.doc
6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
3
1 issue framed by the court
Could the FL-III licence be permanently cancelled for breaches not mentioned in the show-cause notice, given that similar breaches were compoundable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Neelam Ganesh Suryawanshi
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.3
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court