LATA SURESH NARAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing immediately.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order.

(3.) DECEASED Ramkrushna was holding a licence CL-III for running liquor business at village Silli, Tah. Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur. He died on 18/6/2006 leaving behind children from his two wives-namely Satyabhama and urpuda. Both the wives had predeceased. Respondent no. 2 Diwakar is son from one wife and respondent No. 3 Dilip is from another wife. On death of Ramkrushna, the respondents no. 2 and 3 applied before the Collector for transfer of the licence in their names. That was objected to by the petitioner No. 1 prafulla, who is also son of Ramkrushna and petitioner No. 2 Lata, who is married daughter of deceased Ramkrushna. Respondent No. 4 is widowed daughter and respondent No. 5 is widowed daughter-in-law of deceased ramkrushna. Respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 are the sons of respondent No. 5 and grand sons of deceased Ramkrushna. In view of the objection taken by the petitioners to transfer the licence in the name of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only, the Collector passed order on 16/11/2006 suspending the licence in view of the guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra by Circular No. BPO-1093/ exc-2, dated 20/8/1996. That order was challenged by the respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Commissioner under section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. However, their appeal came to be dismissed. Thereafter respondents No. 1 and 2 filed Revision application being No. RVN-1108/rv-12/exc-3 under section 138 of the Act. The learned Minister for State Excise allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Collector directing that the licence be transferred in the names of the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4. That order has been challenged in the present petition.