RAMKISHOR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Letters Patent Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and order dtd. 11/12/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2796/2005, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and thereby, confirmed the order dtd. 18/05/2005 passed by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 18/05/2005 had confirmed the order of respondent No.3 whereby the respondent No.3 cancelled the FL-III license issued in favour of the appellant vide order dtd. 16/03/2005.

(2.) The appellant runs a business of Eating House under the license and of Selling Important Foreign Liquor (potable) and Indian make Foreign Liquor under the License Form FL-III issued as per the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (for short, "Rules 1953"). On 09/04/2002, the officials of the respondent No.4 - Superintendent visited the appellant's business place. At the time of inspection, they found certain breaches under the provisions of Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules 1953, The Bombay Foreign Liquor (Sale on Cash, Register of Sales, etc.) Rules, 1969 and violation of the Condition Nos.8 to 10 of the license. The respondent No.4 after completing necessary enquiry, made report to the respondent No.3 - Collector, State Excise, Amravati. The respondent No.3 on the basis of material collected during the course of enquiry, issued Show Cause Notice dtd. 30/01/2004 to the appellant and called upon him to show cause as to why his license should not be cancelled. The illegalities, breaches and violations of the law, rules and Condition Nos.8 to 10 attributed to the appellant are i) Alterations in the licensed premises without approval of the licensing authority. ii) There was a vast difference in the stock and IMFL resulting shortages and iii) The stock of 1680 X 180 mm bottles of 50 U.P. rum and 12 x 750 mm bottles of Diplomat Whisky found without transport permit. The appellant filed his reply dtd. 20/02/2004 and tried to explain his bonafides and placed on record his assurance that in near future, he would take care. The respondent No.3 on the basis of material placed on record and the seriousness of the breaches, came to the conclusion that the appellant does not deserve any leniency and ultimately cancelled the license vide order dtd. 16/03/2005.

(3.) The appellant filed the Statutory Appeal against the order of cancellation of the license by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 on appreciation of the material, did not find any reason to disagree with the conclusion reached by the respondent No.3 and ultimately dismissed the appeal vide order dtd. 18/05/2005.