DURGALAL RUPLAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2021-6-48
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 10,2021

Durgalal Ruplal Jaiswal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

THE STATE OF TAMILNADU VS. K BALU & ANR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.G.AVACHAT - (1.)Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.
(2.)The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.08.2019, passed by the State of Maharashtra in Excise Department, sanctioning the transfer of country liquor shop (CL-III License No. 58) from village Shirse, Taluka Radhanagari, District Kolhapur to village Karmad, Taluka and District Aurangabad. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the officials of the respondent No. 1. It is respondent No. 5, whose country liquor shop has been permitted to be shifted vide the order impugned in this writ petition.
(3.)Heard.
Shri A.M. Gholap, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner runs a country liquor shop at Karmad, Taluka and District Aurangabad. The respondent No. 5 also holds a license to run a country liquor shop. He would run such a shop at village Shirse, District Kolhapur. He had to discontinue to run the said shop in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 15.12.2016. Application moved by the respondent No. 5 for shifting his country liquor shop has been granted in breach of Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules of 1973'). The Collector, Aurangabad (State Excise) did not obtain concurrence of his counterpart of District Kolhapur (respondent No. 4). The petitioner raised an objection for shifting of the country liquor shop of respondent No. 5, since his business is likely to be affected. The population of village Karmad is around 6,000. As per the Government Notification dated 03.09.1983, the sanctioned strength of CL-III license upto the population of 10,000, is one. There is also breach of the guidelines prescribed under notification dated 03.09.1983. In view of the said guidelines, it has been prescribed that the place from where the shop is to be shifted, should not be left unserved. The additional shop at the new place should be economically viable. There should not be any objection from the people from the place to which the transfer is asked for. The learned counsel would further submit that there is exemption from compliance of Sub-Rule 25(d) of the Rules of 1973 only in case the transfer of shop is within the same district. Since it is inter-district shifting of the country liquor shop, the conditions provided under Clause I to III of the Rule 25(d) of the Rules of 1973 are very much applicable. Since the population of Karmad is less than 6,000, shifting of the shop to that place would be economically not viable. The learned counsel would further submit that identical question had come up for consideration in the case of Vyankanna Ragalu Nemaniwar vs. Sheshrao Shankarrao Kerale and Ors. - Writ Petition No. 1010 of 1986. The Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 09.12.1986, set aside the permission granted for shifting of country liquor shop. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6312 of 2015 (Nagpur Bench) (Padma Anjesh Golapalliwar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12521 of 2016, to ultimately urge for allowing the writ petition in terms of prayer clause [A].



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.