JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.: - Since common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners challenge the orders passed by the respondents rejecting the applications for revalidation of their liquor permits-one in relation to country liquor, namely licence CL-III and another in relation to Indian made foreign liquor in the form of FL-II being totally arbitrary one and in contravention of the provisions of law.

3. The undisputed facts in both the petitions are that the applications for revalidation of the liquor licences of the petitioners, like many other applicants, during the relevant time, were rejected on the ground that they were filed beyond the cut-off date fixed by the Government for filing such application. It is the case of the respondents that the Government from time to time pursuant to the circulars issued had fixed the cut-off date for the purpose of filing applications for revalidation of the liquor licences which were not being utilised for number of years after having obtained such licences and the petitioners having not filed the applications for revalidation prior to the cut-off date stipulated under such circulars, their applications were lawfully rejected. It is the case of the respondents that in terms of the provisions of law contained in section 139(1)(n) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act", the Government is empowered to issue such circulars and instructions in the absence of rules being framed in that regard under section 143 of the said Act, and as there were no Rules framed in relation to the procedure for revalidation as well as the time limit within which the same could be done, the necessary circulars were issued by the Government and since the applications for revalidation of licence were not in consonance with those circulars and were not filed within the time stipulated under those circulars, the orders passed by the authorities in the case in hand cannot be found fault with.

4. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned orders, drawing attention to section 139(1)(n) of the said Act fairly submitted that the power of the Government to issue such circulars cannot be disputed. However, the circulars to be issued under the said provision of law, when they relate to the matter affecting a class of persons or the subject-matter dealt with under such circular is of general nature affecting a class of persons, those circulars are necessarily required to be published in Official Gazette and the provision of law contained in sub-section (2) of section 139 of the said Act is very clear in that regard and the same is mandatory in nature and in the absence of compliance of such publication, no legality could be attached to the circulars said to have been issued, and therefore any order passed based on such circulars cannot have legal sanctity and therefore the impugned orders are bad in law and need to be quashed and further the applications of the petitioners for revalidation ought to have been dealt with and decided in accordance with the provisions of law, ignoring the said circulars. In the regard, reliance is sought to be placed in the unreported decision of this Court in the matter of (Janaki R. Shetty v. Collector of Bombay and others)1, in Writ Petition No. 1917 of 1988 reported in 1993(3) Bom.C.R. 648, delivered on 6-3-1993 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the decisions of the Apex Court in (Khoday Distilleries Limited and others v. State of Karnataka and others)2, reported in 1996(10) S.C.C. 304, (Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur v. Municipal Board, Rampur)3, reported in A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 895 and (State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George)4, reported in A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 722. The learned A.G.P., on the other hand, has submitted that in case of the Writ Petition No. 639 of 1994, the application fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document