Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, residents of Village Chas (kaman), Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 7 March 2012 passed by the Minister of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Maharashtra. The Minister had allowed a revision application under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 filed by respondent No.1, who held an F.L.III licence to sell liquor. The revision challenged the orders of the Commissioner of State Excise dated 3 December 2009 and the Collector, Pune dated 21 March 2009, which had refused to renew/revoke the licence. The villagers, particularly women, were aggrieved by the grant of the liquor licence. On 5 February 2009, a Special Gramsabha meeting was convened where 425 out of 964 women voted unanimously in favour of a resolution to ban liquor in the village. This resolution was forwarded to the Collector and Commissioner. The Collector and Commissioner, considering the resolution and public sentiment, passed orders adverse to the licence holder. The Minister, however, in revision, set aside those orders and allowed the licence to continue. The High Court found that the Minister's order was arbitrary and perverse as it failed to give due weight to the Gramsabha resolution and the collective will of the villagers. The court held that the revisional authority must consider such resolutions and cannot ignore them. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Minister for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Bombay Prohibition Act - Revisional Powers - Section 138 - Gramsabha Resolution - The Minister of Prohibition and Excise, while allowing a revision under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, set aside the orders of the Collector and Commissioner which had refused to renew/revoke a liquor licence based on a Gramsabha resolution banning liquor. The High Court held that the Minister failed to give due weight to the Gramsabha resolution and the public sentiment, and the order was arbitrary and perverse. (Paras 1-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with an order of a quasi-judicial authority if it is arbitrary, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations. The impugned order of the Minister was quashed as it ignored the Gramsabha resolution and the collective will of the villagers. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister of Prohibition and Excise, while exercising revisional powers under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, was justified in setting aside the orders of the Collector and Commissioner which had refused to renew/revoke the liquor licence based on a Gramsabha resolution banning liquor in the village.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 7 March 2012 passed by the Minister of Prohibition and Excise, and remitted the matter back to the Minister for fresh consideration in accordance with law, giving due weight to the Gramsabha resolution and the public sentiment.
Law Points
- Gramsabha resolution banning liquor is a relevant factor
- Revisional authority must consider public sentiment
- Section 138 Bombay Prohibition Act
- 1949
- Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.3130 OF 2012
Mr.U.B.Nighot with Mr.Abhijit Kadam for petitioners, Mr.D.B.Sawant for respondent No.1, Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, Mr.R.A.Thorat i/b. P.J.Thorat for respondent No.6
Smt.Shantabai Baban Muluk and Smt.Sangita Anil Ghanwat
Smt.Asha Janardhan Chaskar, Tahsildar Khed, Collector (State Excise Division) Pune, Commissioner State Excise Maharashtra State Mumbai, The State of Maharashtra through Hon'ble Minister for State Excise, Sarpanch Grampanchayat Chas
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a revisional order passed by the Minister of Prohibition and Excise under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 7 March 2012 passed by the Minister of Prohibition and Excise allowing the revision application of respondent No.1 and setting aside the orders of the Collector and Commissioner which had refused to renew/revoke the liquor licence.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, residents of Village Chas, were aggrieved by the grant of a liquor licence to respondent No.1 and the subsequent revisional order of the Minister which allowed the licence to continue despite a Gramsabha resolution banning liquor in the village.
Previous Decisions
The Collector, Pune passed an order on 21 March 2009 and the Commissioner of State Excise passed an order on 3 December 2009, both adverse to the licence holder. These orders were set aside by the Minister in revision on 7 March 2012.
Issues
Whether the Minister of Prohibition and Excise, while exercising revisional powers under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, was justified in setting aside the orders of the Collector and Commissioner which had refused to renew/revoke the liquor licence based on a Gramsabha resolution banning liquor in the village.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Gramsabha resolution banning liquor was a legitimate expression of the collective will of the villagers and should have been given due weight by the revisional authority.
The respondent No.1 argued that the licence was validly granted and the revisional authority correctly set aside the orders of the Collector and Commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi
A revisional authority under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 must consider a Gramsabha resolution banning liquor as a relevant factor and cannot ignore the collective will of the villagers. An order that fails to give due weight to such a resolution is arbitrary and perverse, and liable to be quashed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are residing in Village Chas (kaman) Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune, impugn the order passed by the State Government and particularly the Minister of the Department of Prohibition and Excise, dated 7th March 2012.
It is stated that the women of the village in question on 5th February 2009 convened a Special Gramsabha meeting and passed Resolution to ban liquor in the said village.
Procedural History
The first respondent was granted an F.L.III licence to sell liquor. The villagers, aggrieved, convened a Gramsabha on 5 February 2009 and passed a resolution to ban liquor. The Collector passed an order on 21 March 2009 and the Commissioner passed an order on 3 December 2009, both adverse to the licence holder. The first respondent filed a revision under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 before the Minister of Prohibition and Excise, who allowed the revision on 7 March 2012, setting aside the orders of the Collector and Commissioner. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949: 138
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
