LAXMAN R VAJAGE Vs. COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners challenge the orders passed by the respondents rejecting the applications for revalidation of their liquor permits - one in relation to country liquor, namely Licence CL-III and another in relation to Indian made foreign liquor in the form of FL-II being totally arbitrary one and in contravention of the provisions of law.

(3.) THE undisputed facts in both the petitions are that the applications for revalidation of the liquor licences of the petitioners, like many other applicants, during the relevant time, were rejected on the ground that they were filed beyond the cut-off date fixed by the Government for filing such application. It is the case of the respondents that the Government from time to time pursuant to the circulars issued had fixed the cut-off date for the purpose of filing applications for revalidation of the liquor licences which were not being utilised for number of years after having obtained such licences and the petitioners having not filed the applications for revalidation prior to the cut-off date stipulated under such circulars, their applications were lawfully rejected. It is the case of the respondents that in terms of the provisions of law contained in section 139 (1) (n)of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act", the Government is empowered to issue such circulars and instructions in the absence of rules being framed in that regard under section 143 of the said Act, and as there were no rules framed in relation to the procedure for revalidation as well as the time limit within which the same could be done, the necessary circulars were issued by the Government and since the applications for revalidation of licence were not in consonance with those circulars and were not filed within the time stipulated under those circulars, the orders passed by the authorities in the case in hand cannot be found fault with.