RAMKISHOR NATHULAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner a person holding FL-III licence has challenged the order dated 16-3-2005 passed by respondent No. 3 - Collector, canceling that licence under section 54(1)(c) of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Prohibition Act" and an order in Appeal preferred under section 137 (2) thereof, delivered by respondent No. 2 Commissioner, maintaining it on 18-5-2005.

(2.) Shri S. G. Jagtap, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner licensee has not disputed the facts and has restricted his challenge only to legal grounds. The ground pressed into service by him is after renewal of license with knowledge to the competent Authority of alleged lapses/irregularities, no action in relation to such past lapses or irregularities is possible and the punishment of cancellation of licence for such pre-renewal period is not legal. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported at K. V. Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 3 MhLJ 90 in support of his contentions.

(3.) He has pointed out that as per the provisions of Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 the duration of licence is from 1st April till 31st March of next year and in this case, the alleged lapses or irregularities were noted in inspection dated 9-4-2002. Thereafter FL-III licence of petitioner was renewed for period from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004 and then for subsequent period from 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2005. He points out that first order of cancellation is passed by respondent No. 3 Collector on 16-3-2005 and the Appellate Order is passed thereafter i.e. on 18-3-2005. He points out that, the cancellation therefore, is after two renewals and hence, legally unsustainable. He has relied upon the provisions of Rule 45 of the Foreign Liquor Rules to show that the authority has been empowered to grant licence and also to renew it. According to him the power to grant, includes power to cancel also and hence when alleged lapses were within the knowledge of competent renewing authority and despite that knowledge, the renewals were granted regularly from year to year, the action, the cancellation of that licence by the impugned order on 16-3-2005 is uncalled for and arbitrary. He has invited attention to the provisions of section 54 of the Prohibition Act, in this respect.