Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manoj Gulabrao Patel, a holder of a CL-III licence for country liquor, challenged an order dated 30th March 2002 passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State. The Commissioner, after taking cognizance of a report regarding breaches under Rules 31, 31(4), and 33 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1972, and noting the pendency of investigation, was prima facie satisfied that the breaches were severe and the case fit for suspension of licence. However, instead of suspending the licence, the Commissioner directed the appellant to deposit Rs.1,00,000 as a condition to keep the licence operational pending a detailed enquiry. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed in limine by a Single Judge on 4th June 2002, based on the statement of the learned A.G.P. that the amount was a refundable deposit. Against this dismissal, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal. At the admission of the appeal, the Advocate General for the State stated that the respondents would not enforce the order requiring the deposit, but this was without prejudice to their right to take action in accordance with law, including suspension of licence. The Division Bench, after hearing the matter, noted that the deposit was an interim measure and refundable. The court found no reason to interfere with the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. The court also recorded the statement made by the Advocate General that the order dated 12th April 2002 requiring deposit would not be enforced, but the authorities were free to proceed in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Excise Law - Interim Deposit - Power of Commissioner - Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1972, Rules 31, 31(4), 33 - The Commissioner, pending enquiry into breaches of licence conditions, directed the licensee to deposit Rs.1,00,000 as a condition for not suspending the licence. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine. The Division Bench held that the deposit was an interim measure to facilitate enquiry and was refundable if the licensee was acquitted. The appeal was dismissed as the order did not warrant interference. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner of State Excise has the power to direct a licensee to deposit a sum of money as a condition for not suspending the licence pending enquiry, and whether such direction is legal and valid.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is upheld. The statement made by the Advocate General that the order dated 12th April 2002 requiring deposit will not be enforced is recorded, but the authorities are free to proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Interim deposit pending enquiry
- Power of Commissioner under Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules
- 1972
- Refundable deposit not punitive
- No interference by appellate court
