HARISH MAHADEO PIMPALKHUTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is for the fifth time that the petitioner is knocking at at the doors of this Court merely for obtaining a licence for sale of mhowra flowers. It is not necessary to recite the whole history of this litigation which, though the relevant facts are few, spreads over broader, canvas.

(2.) The petitioner held licence for selling mhowra flowers from 1965 to 1961 which was duly renewed every year. He did not get it renewed after 31-3-1968. On 17-11-1971 a complaint was made against him for offences punishable under sections 419 and 471 read with 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted him of these offences on 4-11-1974 and sentenced him to imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 300. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 7-7-1975. In revision this Court on 2-3-1976 modified the sentence by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment but maintaining the conviction and sentence of fine. The State Government moved the Supreme Court against this reduction in sentence. On 16-4-1979 it allowed the appeal and restored the sentence imposed by the trial Court, with the result that the petitioner had to undergo imprisonment for three months besides paying fine for the said offences.

(3.) In the meanwhile the petitioner applied for and obtained licence which was valid from 5-5-1977 to 31-3-1978. It was renewed on the petitioners' application for the period from 1-4-1978 to 31-3-1979, 1-4-1979 to 31-34980 and 1-3-1980 to 30.6-1980. It is said that the last renewal was for a period of three months only as a matter of general policy of the State Government. On 5-7-1980 the petitioner applied for renewal of his licence and along with his application he is said to have filed an affidavit narrating the ievents-in the Criminal case culminating in the order of the Supreme Court. On 2-8-1910 the Collector (respondent No. 3), the licensing authority, informed the petitioner that the licence could not be renewed because of the conviction as provided by section 54 (1) (d) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (respondent No. 2), the appellate authority, rejected the petitioner's appeal against the said order on 30-12-1980. The Commissioner was of the view that section 54 (1) (d) was available even at the statge of renewal of licence since "refusal to renew licence amounts to cahcellation". In the meanwhile the petitioner had filed two write petitions in this Court being Writ Petition No- 1923 and 2317 of 1980, but the same were withdrawn for one reason or the other. After the appellate order was passed the ,petitioner moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 155 of 1981 wherein he challenged the said orders of the Collector and Commissioner on the ground amongst others that section 54 (1) (d) was not available to the Collector for refusing to renew the licence as it did not amount to cancellation with which alone the said provision deels. This contention found favour with the Divison Bench (to which one of us, Mohta, J., was party) which disposed of said petition on 24-3-1981, with the following observations :