Dismissed

Babaso Krushna Nigade v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Minister of State Excise Home Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2024WP/8065/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the withdrawal of an ALIII license granted to two respondents who failed to prove land acquisition for the licensed premises. The High Court held that the Collector, who revoked the license without considering the valid sale deed, was in error and set aside the revocation.

What did the court decide?

The registration petition was dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner and the Minister setting aside the Collector's cancellation order stood affirmed.

Babaso Krushna Nigade vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

12-WP-8065-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8065 OF 2024

¶4

Babaso Krushna Nigade ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra Thr. Minister Of State Excise Home Dept And Ors ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Rahul P. Kasbekar, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. P. G. Sawant, A.G.P. for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 10^th JULY, 2024

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State.

¶10

An FL-III license, was granted to the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on 07.10.2019 (page 49). On a complaint by the petitioner the Collector by the order dated 07.06.2021 (page 25) had cancelled the license, on the ground, that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are not able to show as to how the land and the construction

¶11

TALLE

¶12

SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

¶13

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2024.07.11 18:34:37 +0530

¶14

made thereupon for which the license is granted, was acquired (page 26).

¶15

An appeal against the same by the respondent nos. 4

1 of 3

Shubham Talle

12-WP-8065-2024.doc

and 5 before the Commissioner of State Excise, Mumbai, came to

¶20

be allowed by the order dated 29.10.2021 (page 38), finding that though the order of the Collector alleges fraud, nothing has been discussed as to how fraud was committed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The revision there against before the learned Minister, has also been dismissed by the order dated 26.02.2024 (page 85).

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the land of Survey No. 174/1, Property/No. 9155/2, situated at Nigdewadi, Post Uchgaon, Tal. Karvir, Dist-Kolhpaur was the joint family property of the petitioner, respondent no. 6 and other co- owners and therefore sale deed executed by the respondent no. 6 in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, in respect of part of the same upon which the license has been granted, was illegal and therefore the license was rightly cancelled by the collector, which order is required to be maintained by setting aside the order of the Commissioner and the Minister.

¶22

Learned AGP supports the impugned order.

¶23

The only reason, why the license issued in favour of

¶24

respondent nos. 4 and 5 came to be cancelled, was that the respondent nos. 4 and 5, were not able to demonstrate as to how

2 of 3

Shubham Talle

12-WP-8065-2024.doc

they had acquired the property in respect of which the license was granted. In this context is material to note, that sale deed has been executed by respondent no. 6 in respect of the portion of city survey no 174/1 in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on 21.04.2018. The petitioner has challenged the sale deed before the learned Civil Court kolhapur by way of Civil Suit No. 43 of 2020, in which an application below exhibit 5 for injunction has been rejected, against which as of now the learned counsel is unable to point out any challenge.

¶29

This been the position, it is apparent, that the entitlement as of now of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, can be related, to the sale deed dated 21.04.2018. This position clearly has not been considered by the collector as is indicted from his order dated 07.06.2021, which therefore cannot be sustained and has rightly been set aside.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid factual position, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order.

¶31

The Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶32

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶33

3 of 3

¶34

Shubham Talle

Babaso Krushna Nigade v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Minister of State Excise Home Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babaso Krushna Nigade v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Minister of State Excise Home Dept and Ors.

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

Jyoti Kishan Gehi vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Anr.

Prashant Mehta and Ors. Trustees of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs Bhavin Mehta and Ors.

M/S Crazy Boys Restaurant and Bar vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sudam Nivrutti Daware vs Hemangi Patil Bhamare the Sub Divisional Officer

Uddhav Laxman Anpat and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Ministry of Cooperation and Ors.

Rukmini Tukaram Bhomkar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.