Case Note & Summary
The case involves an inter se dispute between two partners, Girijashankar Balaji Jaiswal and Shriram Bhaiyalal Jaiswal, over a Country Liquor License in Form CLIII. The license was originally granted to Shriram in 1973. In 1979, they entered into a partnership deed recognized by the State Excise Department, and in 1981, the license was issued in joint names. In 1998, the Collector ordered deletion of Shriram's name from the license. Shriram appealed to the Commissioner, who confirmed the deletion. Shriram then approached the Minister under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The Minister, by order dated 16.12.1999, set aside the Commissioner's order and restored Shriram's name, but also deleted the appellant's name from the license without any notice or hearing to the appellant. The appellant challenged this order by way of a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant then filed this Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench found that the Minister's order deleting the appellant's name was passed in violation of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given. The court held that the Minister could not have deleted the appellant's name without affording a hearing. The appeal was allowed, the Minister's order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Minister for fresh consideration after hearing all parties.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Section 138 Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 - The Minister's order deleting the appellant's name from the license was passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the appellant, violating principles of natural justice - Held that such an order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister's order under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, deleting the appellant's name from the country liquor license without affording an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.1999 passed by the Minister is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Minister for fresh consideration after hearing all concerned parties. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- partnership rights
- deletion of name from license
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act
- 1949 Section 138
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 236
Letters Patent Appeal No.385 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 2810 of 2000
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Rohit B. Deo
Shri V.V. Bhangde (Senior Counsel for appellants), Shri A.V. Palshikar (AGP for respondents 1-3), Shri S.S. Alaspurkar (Counsel for respondent 4)
Virendra s/o. Girijashankar Jaiswal and Shrinivas s/o. Girijashankar Jaiswal (Legal representatives of Girijashankar Baladin Jaiswal)
The State of Maharashtra, The Commissioner of State Excise, The Collector, Amravati, and Ramesh S/o. Shriram Jaiswal (Legal representative of Shriram Bhaiyalal Jaiswal)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging Minister's order under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought quashing of the Minister's order dated 16.12.1999 which deleted their predecessor's name from the country liquor license without hearing.
Filing Reason
The Minister's order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, violating principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
The Collector ordered deletion of Shriram's name from the license on 06.05.1998; the Commissioner confirmed it on 11.12.1998; the Minister set aside those orders and restored Shriram's name but deleted appellant's name on 16.12.1999; the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
Issues
Whether the Minister's order deleting the appellant's name from the license without hearing is violative of natural justice.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the Minister's order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice.
Respondents argued that the Minister acted within powers under Section 138 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
An order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. The Minister under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, cannot delete a partner's name from a license without giving that partner a hearing.
Judgment Excerpts
The order impugned is dated 16.12.1999 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, by and under which the name of the appellant was deleted from the license.
The order impugned is patently in breach of the principles of natural justice.
The order impugned is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Hon'ble Minister for fresh consideration.
Procedural History
The Collector deleted Shriram's name from the license on 06.05.1998. Shriram appealed to the Commissioner, who confirmed the deletion on 11.12.1998. Shriram then approached the Minister under Section 138 of the Act, who on 16.12.1999 set aside the Commissioner's order and restored Shriram's name but deleted the appellant's name. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2810 of 2000, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 385 of 2008.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949: Section 138
