NARESH SHIVHARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-licencee is before this Court taking exception to the order passed by the Collector dtd. 28/4/2021 reviewing the order passed on 19/4/2021. By the order dtd. 19/4/2021, the Collector had initially imposed fine under Sec. 48 of the M.P. Excise Act (for brevity "the Act") in connection with Crime No.318/2020 registered under Sec. 34(1)(2) of the Act. However, the petitioner was acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dtd. 10/3/2021. During this period, the Collector reviewed the order passed on 19/4/2021 by the impugned order confiscating the vehicle allegedly used in transportation of the liquor.

(2.) Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, while taking exception to the impugned order, submits that apart from the merits the impugned order of review passed by the Collector in fact the same suffers from the vice of coram non judice inasmuch as the Collector once passed the order under Sec. 48 of the Act became functus officio and for want of provision to exercise the power of review, the impugned order of review is unsustainable in the eyes of law. To bolster the aforesaid submission, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Patel Narshi Thakershi And Others Vs. Shri Pradyumnsinghji Arjunsinghji reported in [(1971) 3 SCC 844 (Para 4)]" quoted below:

(3.) Per contra, Shri Rohit Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, tried to persuade this Court contending that the Collector can always rectify the mistake crept in the order passed under Sec. 48 of the Act by resorting to inherent powers.