Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, partners of M/s Anjali Wines, held a licence (FL-II/CL/FL/TOD-3) to run a liquor business at Nagar road, Beed. They were occupying premises belonging to one Mr. Sanap, who insisted on vacating. The petitioners applied to the authorities for permission to shift their licensed business to another premises on the same road (property no. 1-3-2609, part of 1-3-90). The application was processed and accepted by the Collector's office. On 10-03-2015, the authorities directed the petitioners to deposit amounts of ₹6,93,010 and ₹2,41,810, which they duly paid. Thereafter, by letter dated 11-03-2015, the petitioners were permitted to run their business in the new premises, and they started doing so. However, on 30-03-2015, the Collector passed an order (No. FLR/112015/151/Supdt.) purportedly staying the shifting of the business. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The Court noted that the stay order was passed without any notice to the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing. The Court held that such an order is unsustainable in law and set it aside. The Court further directed that the petitioners be heard before any adverse order is passed regarding the shifting. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Stay Order Without Hearing - Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, Rules framed thereunder - The Collector passed a stay order dated 30-03-2015 staying the shifting of the petitioners' liquor business without issuing any notice or hearing them, after the authorities had already granted permission and collected fees. The Court held that such an order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing is unsustainable and set it aside. (Paras 1-5) B) Excise Law - Licence - Shifting of Business - Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - The petitioners held a licence for a liquor shop and applied to shift to another premises. The authorities processed the application, directed deposit of fees, and issued a letter permitting the shift. The petitioners acted upon it and started business. The Collector later stayed the shifting. The Court held that once permission is granted and acted upon, the Collector cannot unilaterally stay it without hearing the licensee. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Collector could pass a stay order on the shifting of a liquor business without hearing the licensee, after the authorities had already granted permission and collected fees.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Collector's order dated 30-03-2015, and directed that the petitioners be heard before any adverse order is passed regarding the shifting of their business. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Administrative law
- Stay order without notice
- Licence conditions
- Shifting of business
