KESHAV MAHADEO MOHANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 16/07/2020 passed by the respondent No.2. By the said order it has been observed that transfer of the CL-III License from one place to the other ought to have been done only after placing the proposal before the Commissioner Excise. On this basis, an earlier order passed by the respondent No.2 permitting such transfer stood cancelled.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that the impugned order was unsustainable, firstly because no notice was given either to the predecessor of the petitioner holding the license or the petitioner himself, when the effect of the impugned order was adverse to the interest of the petitioner. Secondly, it was submitted that the provision upon which the respondent No.2 relied, while passing the impugned order did not pertain to cancellation of an order of transfer of license already passed.