STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BASANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) The question involved in this appeal revolves around a narrow compass that is, does an order made by the Minister for State (Excise), Govt. of Maharashtra in a revision-petition under S. 34 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (the Act) require authentication under Art. 166 of the Constitution of India? The High Court of Judicature, Bombay at Aurangabad in a writ petition filed by the first respondent herein has held that it is necessary.