USHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF STATE EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties at admission stage itself.

(3.) The nature of controversy is short. An appeal preferred under the provisions of Section 137 (2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 by the present petitioners is pending before the respondent No.1 Commissioner, which was preferred against the order dated 11.10.2019 and 23.01.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 Collector. By the said order the Collector has directed to add the names of legal heirs of Shyam Tulshiram on the excise licence No.24. The Collector passed this order on the basis of heirship certificate granted by the Court.