LAWS(BOM)-2026-2-135

ISHWARIBAI TAHEMRAM FULWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 27, 2026
Ishwaribai Tahemram Fulwani Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition challenges the order passed in revision whereby the direction issued by the Collector requiring Respondent No.5 to shift his licensed premises was set aside. The core issue that arises for consideration is narrow. It is whether the Collector, after having once granted permission for shifting of the CL-III licence in the year 1997, could again reopen the matter and direct shifting of the same licence by order dtd. 2/9/2006 on the ground that the distance between two shops was less than 200 metres.

(2.) The factual background is largely undisputed. The licence of Respondent No.5 was permitted to be shifted to Manmad by order dtd. 17/5/1997 after verification by the competent authority. Thereafter, several proceedings took place on different grounds including alleged breaches, suspension, cancellation and appeals. In proceedings arising from cancellation of licence, the matter was remanded and a committee was constituted to measure the distance between the petitioner's shop and the shop of Respondent No.5. The committee recorded the distance as 177.75 metres. On the basis of this report, the Collector directed Respondent No.5 to shift the shop or keep it closed. This order became the subject matter of revision and was set aside by the State Government, leading to the present petition.

(3.) The petitioner submits that the distance requirement under Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 is mandatory. According to the petitioner, the committee measurement clearly establishes violation of Rule 24(5). It is argued that the authorities failed to act despite earlier complaints and that Respondent No.5 cannot take advantage of an illegality. It is further contended that law and order concerns existed and that the State Government decided the revision without proper hearing. The petitioner also argues that once violation of statutory distance is established, the Collector was justified in directing shifting of the shop.