APPASAHEB RAMCHANDRA PATIL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF STATE EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have approached this Court against the Order dated 31st March 1994 passed by the Collector, Sangli whereby the Collector has refused to renew the country liquor licence standing in favour of the Petitioners and Order dated 7th September 1994 of the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra, who has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein.

(2.) IT is not necessary to go into the various grounds raised in the Petition. Suffice it to say that the Petitioners were holding a country liquor licence and operating the same since about 1973. The licence period is normally for one year to be renewed annually. The Petitioners in normal course in the year 1994 applied for renewal of the licence as per the relevant rules. It is the contention of the Petitioners that there were no allegations against the Petitioners that they had committed any breach of the conditions and or the terms of the licence and consequently as a matter of course in terms of sub-rule 3 of Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 the licence ought to have been renewed. However, the Licencing Authority by the impugned order dated 31st March 1994 acted on a resolution passed by the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat, Shirdon, and which had been forwarded to the Licencing Authority. By the said resolution the Gram Sabha had passed a resolution that no country liquor shop should be licenced within the area of Gram panchayat in public interest. A perusal of the Order of the Licencing Authority shows that Licencing Authority was aware of the fact that a licence can be cancelled only in terms of Section 54/56 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The Licencing Authority, however, when taking recourse to the provisions of the Prohibition Act proceeded on the footing that as the period of licence was due to expire the same need not be renewed. This was done without issuing a show cause notice to the Petitioners or giving hearing at to why their licence should not be renewed and/or cancelled.

(3.) HAVING heard the Counsel I am of the opinion that there has been breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The Petitioners had applied for renewal in time. There has been no complaint against the Petitioners atleast on record that the Petitioners had violated terms of the licence and as such in the normal course the licence ought to have been renewed. From the Order of the Collector/Licencing Authority it is seen that the Licencing Authority has acted on the resolution of the Gram Sabha. If the Collector wanted to act on the said resolution, it was but natural that this material ought to have been made available to the Petitioners in order to enable the Petitioners to contest the same. This has not been done. Further more, a licence granted could have been cancelled in terms of Sections 54/56 of the Prohibition Act for which the Collector had to issue show cause notice and comply with the other formalities. This has also not been done.