High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Delivers Judgment on Appeals Concerning Locus Standi of Third-Party Residents in Excise Licence Cases. Court Examines Maintainability of Writ Petition When Alternate Remedy Exists Under Bombay Prohibition (Closure of Licence) Order, 2003.

Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment of a Single Judge quashing the State Government's decision to grant an FL-III liquor licence and restoring the rejection by the Collector.

Setting aside of the Single Judge's order dated 27.06.2012; restoration of the State Government's revisional order dated 30.10.2010 granting the licence; and, in the State's appeal, deletion of adverse observations on excise policy.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition of three local residents and quashed the State Government's order granting the licence, holding that the revisional authority ignored material objections; the appellants challenge the locus standi of the writ petitioners, maintainability of the writ, and delay.

Collector, Nagpur, rejected application on 20.02.2010; Commissioner, State Excise, dismissed appeal on 22.06.2010; Minister, State Excise, allowed revision on 30.10.2010 and directed issuance of licence; Single Judge, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petition No.3440/2011 set aside the revisional order on 27.06.2012.

Whether the writ petitioners (third-party residents) had locus standi to challenge the grant of an excise licence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternate remedy available under the Bombay Prohibition (Closure of Licence on Resolution by Village Panchayat etc.) Order, 2003. Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay of ten months in filing. Whether the Single Judge erred on merits by interfering with the revisional order when the area was not purely residential, the police report was vague, and no complaints existed post-licence. Whether the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by making observations on the State’s prohibition policy.

Appellant (Hotel Shobha) contended that the writ petitioners had no locus standi as they were not parties before the licensing authorities and the Act does not contemplate hearing third parties. It was argued that entertaining such petitions would open a floodgate and set an erroneous precedent. The appellant submitted that an alternate and efficacious remedy was available under the 2003 Order, where residents could seek closure of the licence by resolution, thus the writ petition should not have been entertained. The appellant pointed out that the writ petition was filed after a delay of ten months from the date of the revisional order without any explanation, making it liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was argued that the area was no longer purely residential, the police report was vague, and no law and order issues had arisen; other bars and wine shops existed nearby. It was alternatively submitted that if the views of the writ petitioners needed consideration, the matter should be remanded, though this was without prejudice to the main submissions. The State Government, in its appeal, objected to the Single Judge's observations that the prohibition policy must take precedence over grant of liquor licences, submitting that the Bombay Prohibition Act is not solely an Act for implementing prohibition.

the Minister of State Excise, who heard the revision application, reversed both orders and by his order dated 30.10.2010 allowed the Revision Application and directed that the Collector, Nagpur should obtain an undertaking from the Appellants that they would not cause any inconvenience and problems to the residents of area in case the licence is granted the first is that the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 (original Writ Petitioners) have no locusstandi and they could not have challenged the order of the State Government in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the only ground on which the licence was refused by the Collector and Commissioner is that the area in question is residential and that there is adverse police report the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the order of the State Government/ Minister merely because another view is possible

Hotel Shobha applied for an FL-III licence. The Collector, Nagpur, rejected the application on 20.02.2010 after considering police reports and objections from local residents. The Commissioner, State Excise, dismissed the appeal on 22.06.2010. The Minister, State Excise, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, allowed the revision on 30.10.2010 and directed the Collector to issue the licence upon obtaining an undertaking from the applicant. Three local residents (Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in LPA 278/2012) filed Writ Petition No.3440/2011 on 04.07.2011 challenging the revisional order. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on 27.06.2012, quashing the revisional order and restoring the Collector’s rejection. Aggrieved, Hotel Shobha filed LPA No.278/2012, and the State Government filed LPA No.314/2012 against the same judgment. Both appeals were heard together.

• Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949: 137(2), 138
• Constitution of India: 226, 227