Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Manish S. Pardasani (M/s Wine Kornder) – Appellant
Vs.
Inspector State Excise, P-1, Division, Mumbai (Suburbs) & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 126-156 & 157 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27980-28010 & 29169 of 2018]
Decided On : 07-01-2019
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Bias – High Court accepting petitioner’s plea of bias found essentially on their inference of conduct of State excise Commissioner – High Court ought to see necessity of examining the plea of bias – If the lis can be decided on other legal grounds, plea of bias should not be entertained, much less upheld – Instantly plea of bias not made out – Impugned order not sustainable. (Para 39, 40, 44, 54)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Passing adverse remarks and strictures against appellate authority with the directions of how one should behave and pass orders – Instantly neither necessary nor germane for deciding the lis – Should not have been made – Expunged. (Para 66)
(2013) 12 SCC 392 – relied upon
(d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Directions passed in anticipation of order being passed by an appellate authority – Not permissible. (Para 72)
Facts of the case:
The appellants selling liquor from their retail shop were charged with undertaking home delivery of liquor on telephonic orders being placed, and for commission of other offences punishable under Sections 23, 24, 65(a) (e), 73, 74, 81, 83 and 90 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
By two orders their shops were ordered to be sealed and they were fined.
Appeal against both the orders are pending before State Excise Commissioner who has issued interim ex parte orders.
High Court directed de-sealing of the shops and while remanding the matter to the State Commissioner has made certain remarks against the said Commissioner.
The writ petitioners and the State Excise Commissioner have filed these appeals.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable/permissible.
Result: Appeals filed by writ petitioners dismisssed and appeal filed by Commissioner State Excise allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Loding) Nos.3255, 3166, 3169, 3170, 3171, 3179, 3205, 3227-3233, 3235-3237, 3254, 3256-3258, 3263/2018, Writ Petition Nos. 10649-10657/2018.
3. In order to appreciate the factual and legal controversy involved in these appeals which lie in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.
4. The appellants [Writ Petitioners (15)] claim to be the holders of licences issued by the Licensing Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.P. Act") in their respective names. The appellants' claim that they are engaged in the business of selling liquor from their retail shops, which are situated in Mumbai suburb.
5. On 10.08.2018, an FIR (Criminal Case No.408 of 2018) was registered by the State Excise Department against the appellants inter alia for undertaking home delivery of liquor on telephonic orders being placed, and for commission of other offences punishable under Sections 23, 24, 65(a) (e), 73, 74, 81, 83 and 90 of the M.P. Act.
6. This led to the sealing of the appellants' liquor shops on 11.08.2018 by the State Excise officials.
7. The Collector (Excise) issued show cause notices on 27.8.2018 to the appellants setting out therein the breaches of the licence conditions and violation of certain provisions of the M.P. Act. The appellants were directed to show cause as to why their licences be not suspended/cancelled under Section 54 of the M.P. Act.
8. The appellants filed their respective replies to the show cause notices.
9. On 05.09.2018, the Collector (Excise) (licensing authority) after hearing the appellants, passed an interim order and directed de-sealing of the appellants' shops on conditions contained therein.
10. The Superintendent of State Excise, Mumbai felt aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2018 of the Collector (Excise), and filed appeal before the Commissioner State Excise, Maharashtra State for Mumbai being Appeal No.212/2018 under the M.P. Act and questioned its legality and correctness.
11. The Commissioner State Excise in exercise of her appellate powers on 05.09.2018 stayed the operation of the interim order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Collector (Excise).
12. The appeal is pending for final adjudication before the Commissioner State Excise.
13. On 10.09.2018, the Collector (Excise) passed the final order, whereby he directed the licencees to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compounding fees for the breaches committed by the appellants.
14. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2018, the Superintendent State Excise filed an appeal before the Commissioner State Excise being Appeal No. 221/2018 challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Collector (Excise).
15. The Commissioner State Excise vide ex-parte order 17.09.2018 stayed the operation of the order dated 10.09.2018.
16. This appeal is also pending for its final disposal before the Commissioner State Excise.
17. In this background of facts, and at this stage of the proceedings, the appellants felt aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2018, and filed Writ Petitions before the Bombay High Court.
18. In the two Writ Petitions, i.e., W.P. No.3255/2018 and W.P. No. 10650/2018, the challenge was mainly to the sealing orders dated 11.08.2018, passed on oral directions of the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondents (see prayer clause (b) of W.P. No. 10650/2018 at page 169); and the second Order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner State Excise. The other reliefs claimed in the Writ Petitions were essentially consequential to the main reliefs.
19. The appellants challenged the afore-mentioned orders on legal grounds, including violation of the statutory rules, which require a hearing being granted to the licence holders. The writ petitioners also contended that the cond
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
