ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition is filed challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Minister, State Excise Department in Case No. RVN 1108/RA/35/EXC-3 on 18/11/2008.

3. The background facts of the case are as under:

The petitioners country liquor license bearing no. 56 at Pensionpura was granted in favour of late Babulal Sukhalal Jaiswal. After his death, it was transferred in the name of Bajaranglal Jaiswal, who died on 9/3/1999. After his death, said license is transferred in the name of petitioner no. 1 after obtaining consent from all the legal heirs and following due procedure of law. The respondent no. 4 has filed Misc. Application No. 46 of 2006 before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Hingoli for grant of Heir ship Certificate in his name against the property of deceased Bajaranglal Jaiswal including C.L. III license and same was granted by Civil Judge (S.D.). Against grant of heir ship certificate in favour of respondent no. 4, the petitioners have preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2007 before the learned District Judge – 1, Hingoli and by Judgment and Order dated 5/8/2008, Misc. Civil Appeal is allowed and heir ship certificate is cancelled. The respondent no. 4 filed an application on 7/9/2007 before the respondent no. 3 for inclusion of his name as a partner in C.L. III license held by petitioner no. 1 and that application was rejected by respondent no. 3 on 17/10/2007 and said order is not at all challenged by the respondent no. 4 and same is intact till today. As per the Govt. Circular dated 20/8/1996, the license holder can include the name of any person as a partner to the license and for that purpose, no objection from the other legal heirs is not requires. The petitioners have entered in to a partnership deed on 1/7/2007 and it has been agreed that the petitioner no. 2 will be the partner of license of petitioner no. 1. On the basis of partnership deed, the petitioners have applied to the respondent no. 3 for including the name of petitioner no. 2 as a partner in C.L. III license hold by petitioner no. 1. After hearing the parties, the application came to be allowed by the respondent no. 3 by its order dated 7/11/2007. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent no. 4 preferred an Appeal under Section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act before the Commissioner, State Excise and same is dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 11/7/2008. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 11/7/2008, the respondent no. 4 preferred Revision under Section 138 of Bombay Prohibition Act before the Hon’ble Minister, State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. After hearing the parties, the Hon’ble Minister, State Excise Department, pleased to allow the Revision by its Judgment and Order dated 18/11/2008 and directed to include the name of respondent no. 4 in the C.L. III license.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners invited my attention to the pleadings and grounds in the petition, annexures thereto and submitted that the impugned Order passed by the Minister, has travelled beyond pleadings and prayers of the respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that the direction by the Minister to include name of present respondent no. 4 in country liquor license, is without any prayer by the respondent no. 4 in Revision Petition, which was filed before the Minister. The learned counsel, therefore, would submit that the Order passed in Revision by the Minister, deserves to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Order passed in Revision is perfectly tenable in law. The Order is passed in accordance with law and in the interest of justice and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Order.

6. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of State justified the Order passed by the Minister and submitted that Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. After hearing lear