Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an application by respondent no.3 for transfer of an FL-III liquor licence from Village Padali Barav Grampanchayat to premises within Junnar Municipal Council, near an educational institution run by the petitioners. The Collector, Pune rejected the transfer on 19 November 2019 after considering objections raised by the petitioners, local residents, a Member of Parliament, a local MLA and Adivasi Shikshan Sanstha, citing likelihood of law and order problem. The Collector's own inspection report showed the distance from the main entrance of the petitioners' educational institution to the proposed premises was about 450 meters, from the new gate about 144 meters, and aerial distance about 95 meters, all exceeding the 75-meter prohibition under Rule 45(1)(c) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules. The report also noted an existing hotel with similar licence at 375 meters to which petitioners had never objected. Despite these findings, the Collector rejected the application on extraneous grounds. Respondent no.3 appealed under Section 37(2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The Commissioner of State Excise allowed the appeal on 30 March 2021, observing that the Collector's order was based on grounds outside the rules and unsupported by police material. The petitioners filed a revision under Section 138 before the Principal Secretary, State Excise Department, who dismissed it on 22 June 2021. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition, raising two main contentions: first, a fresh police report was required to assess law and order; second, a Court Commissioner should be appointed to re-measure distance because the inspection was flawed. The High Court rejected both contentions. It held that the statutory distance requirement under Rule 45(1)(c) was clearly satisfied and that the Collector's rejection based on political representations and apprehension without material could not be sustained. The Court also held that the petitioners had not challenged the inspection report at the first opportunity and could not now ask the writ court to collect evidence; no perversity in the factual findings was shown. The appellate and revisional authorities were found to have correctly applied the rules and not succumbed to political pressure. The available text indicates the Court found no merit in the petition and declined to interfere, though the formal operative dismissal is not explicitly set out in the provided extract.
Headnote
A) Excise Law - Transfer of FL-III Liquor Licence - Distance Requirement - Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, Rule 45(1)(c) - The Collector recorded that the distance from the educational institution to the proposed premises was 450 meters from the main entrance and 144 meters from the new gate, exceeding the statutory 75-meter prohibition; the appellate authority allowed transfer based on compliance with Rule 45(1)(c) and absence of challenge to inspection report - Held that once the statutory distance is complied with, mere apprehension of law and order cannot be used to defeat the transfer (Paras 3-4, 8-9). B) Administrative Law - Exercise of Discretion by Licensing Authority - Grounds Outside Rules and Political Pressure - Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, Sections 37(2), 138 - The Collector rejected the transfer application solely on objections from residents, MP, MLA and an education society, without any police report or material indicating law and order problem; the appellate and revisional authorities found such rejection outside the purview of rules - Held that orders based on extraneous considerations and apparent political pressure are invalid and cannot be sustained in judicial review (Paras 3, 5, 8). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Appointment of Court Commissioner for Fresh Measurement - Collection of Evidence in Judicial Review - Not mentioned - Petitioners sought appointment of a Court Commissioner to verify distance, relying on Vikrama Shama Shetty; but they had not challenged the inspection report earlier and findings were not perverse - Held that the writ court would not aid petitioners in collecting evidence and could not reopen factual findings absent perversity (Paras 6, 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a transfer of FL-III liquor licence can be refused solely on the ground of apprehended law and order when the premises comply with the statutory distance requirement under Rule 45(1)(c); and whether a writ court should appoint a Court Commissioner to re-measure distance when the earlier inspection report is uncontroverted and no perversity is shown.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the petitioners' contentions lacked merit; it found that the Collector's rejection was based on extraneous considerations and political pressure, while the appellate and revisional authorities correctly applied Rule 45(1)(c). The court refused to appoint a Court Commissioner and held that factual findings cannot be reopened in writ jurisdiction absent perversity. The available text implies rejection of the writ petition but does not include a formal operative dismissal.
Law Points
- Rule 45(1)(c) of Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules mandates minimum 75 meters distance from educational or religious institutions for FL-III licence
- mere apprehension of law and order without police report is not a valid ground to reject transfer
- licensing authority must not act on political pressure
- writ court will not appoint Court Commissioner to collect evidence when inspection report is uncontroverted
