Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Aruna Mohanbabu Jaiswal and Sau. Alka Uday Jaiswal, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 06/05/2022 passed by the Collector of State Excise, Amravati, suspending the CL-III license for country liquor. The license was originally issued to Laxmibai Narayanlal Jaiswal and later transferred to her adopted son Mohanbabu Jaiswal, husband of petitioner No.1. Mohanbabu inducted petitioner No.1 as a partner and formed a partnership firm. The license was permitted to be in the name of the partnership firm. The Collector suspended the license on the ground that the license was in the name of the deceased Mohanbabu and the petitioners were not entitled to carry on business. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973, and without giving an opportunity of hearing. The court held that the Collector failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the Act and Rules, and the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Collector to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
Headnote
A) Excise Law - Suspension of License - Natural Justice - The Collector suspended the CL-III license without following the mandatory procedure under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973, and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - Held that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed (Paras 3-18).
B) Partnership - Succession - License Transfer - The license originally in the name of Laxmibai was transferred to her adopted son Mohanbabu, who inducted his wife as a partner - The Collector failed to consider the partnership deed and the fact that the license was permitted to be in the name of the partnership firm - Held that the suspension order was passed without proper application of mind (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 06/05/2022 suspending the CL-III license was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973, and whether the principles of natural justice were violated.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 06/05/2022 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Collector to decide afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- statutory interpretation
- mandatory procedure
- suspension of license
- partnership
- succession
- opportunity of hearing
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (09) 141
Writ Petition No. 2723 of 2022
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri for petitioners; Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Ms Ritu Jog for respondent No.3; Mr. S.G. Jagtap for respondent No.4
Smt. Aruna Mohanbabu Jaiswal and Sau. Alka Uday Jaiswal
The Collector, State Excise Department, Amravati; The Superintendent of State Excise, Amravati; Shri Anand Mohanbabu Jaiswal; Shri Ashish Mohanbabu Jaiswal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging suspension of CL-III license for country liquor.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 06/05/2022 suspending the CL-III license and restoration of the license.
Filing Reason
The Collector suspended the license without following mandatory procedure and without giving opportunity of hearing.
Previous Decisions
The license was originally issued to Laxmibai, transferred to Mohanbabu, and later permitted to be in the name of the partnership firm. The Collector suspended the license on 06/05/2022.
Issues
Whether the impugned order suspending the CL-III license was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973?
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in passing the impugned order?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed without following the mandatory procedure under the Act and Rules and without giving an opportunity of hearing.
Respondents argued that the license was in the name of the deceased and the petitioners were not entitled to carry on business.
Ratio Decidendi
The Collector failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973, and violated principles of natural justice by not giving an opportunity of hearing before suspending the license.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 06/05/2022, passed by the respondent No.1-Collector of State Excise, whereby license for country liquor, i.e. CL-III license has been suspended...
The petitioners contend that the impugned order is in the teeth of law laid down by this Court in the context of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973...
Procedural History
The license was originally issued to Laxmibai Narayanlal Jaiswal, transferred to Mohanbabu Jaiswal, who inducted his wife as partner. The Collector suspended the license on 06/05/2022. The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the suspension.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949:
- Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973:
