Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Giridhar Pathade, a resident of Village Peth, District Nashik, filed a writ petition challenging three orders: (i) order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner State Excise granting prior permission for shifting of a CL III license; (ii) order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Collector of Nashik permitting the shifting; and (iii) order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the State of Maharashtra dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The respondent No. 3, Kailash Nanaji Suryavanshi, held a CL III license under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, and was running a restaurant and bar named M/s Hotel Mohana Garden on Plot No. 284 since 1996. The premises was shut down pursuant to the Supreme Court order dated 15.12.2016 prohibiting liquor vends on national highways, as the plot abutted a national highway. Respondent No. 3 constructed a wall on three sides of the plot to restrict entry from the highway and applied for shifting the license to a new premises. The Collector and Commissioner granted permission for the shift. The petitioner objected, claiming that the new premises was near a religious place and would cause nuisance. The court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, and the Bombay Prohibition (Bar and Restaurant) Rules, 1956. The court noted that the license was already granted and the shifting was permissible under the rules. The petitioner's objection regarding distance from a religious place was not raised before the licensing authority and was not supported by any evidence. The court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the shifting as the license was validly granted and all statutory requirements were complied with. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the authorities.
Headnote
A) Excise Law - Shifting of License - CL III License - Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 - The petitioner challenged the orders permitting shifting of a CL III license from one premises to another. The court held that the shifting was permissible as the license was already granted and the new premises complied with all statutory requirements. The petitioner's objection regarding distance from a religious place was not raised before the licensing authority and could not be entertained at this stage. (Paras 1-10) B) Excise Law - Highway Liquor Ban - Supreme Court Order - The original premises was shut down due to the Supreme Court order dated 15.12.2016 prohibiting liquor vends on national highways. The licensee constructed a wall to restrict highway access and applied for shifting. The court held that the shifting was a valid measure to comply with the ban and continue business. (Paras 3-5) C) Excise Law - Locus Standi - Public Interest - The petitioner, a resident of the same village, objected to the shifting on grounds of nuisance and proximity to a religious place. The court held that the petitioner had no locus standi as the license was already granted and the objections were not raised before the licensing authority. The court also noted that the petitioner's allegations were vague and unsubstantiated. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the shifting of a CL III license from one premises to another within the same village, after the original premises was shut down due to the Supreme Court's highway liquor ban, is valid and whether the petitioner's objection based on the distance of the new premises from a religious place is maintainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders dated 04.12.2018, 08.02.2019, and 20.09.2019 are upheld.
Law Points
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act
- 1949
- CL III license
- shifting of license
- distance from religious place
- highway liquor ban
- Supreme Court order dated 15.12.2016
- Bombay Prohibition (Bar and Restaurant) Rules
- 1956
