M.S. KARNIK, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner by way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Demand Notice dated 6th July, 2018 issued by respondent No.4 – The Superintendent of State Excise, Pune, District, Pune, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.28,00,000/failing which license of the petitioner is to stand suspended till payment. The Demand Notice is issued pursuant to the audit objection raised by the office of the Accountant General, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, stating therein that the amount has not been recovered towards transfer fee of the license from one site to another site.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are thus :

The petitioner is holding a license in Form FLII and CL/FL/TODIII for sale of sealed bottles of IMFL and country liquor (CL) to the customers under the name and style as 'M/s. Shivam Wines'. The said license was granted by respondent No.3 – The Collector of Pune, State Excise Department, District – Pune, in accordance with the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The petitioner was carrying business at Shop No.1, Harmes Heritage Shopping Complex, Shastri Nagar, Pune, District – Pune within the area of Pune Municipal Corporation. (hereinafter referred to as “the old premises” for short).

4. In respect of a Special Leave Petition pending before the Apex Court considering the impact of the “drink and drive”, the Apex Court by judgment and order dated 15/12/2016 reported as State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. V/s. K.Balu & Ors. [AIR 2017 SCC 262], directed the other States not to renew the liquor vending licenses beyond 31st March, 2017 which are situated at the distance of 500 mtrs. from National Highway and State Highway.

5. Pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Circular dated 7th June, 2017 stating that if the premises affected by the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are required to be shifted, in that event no privilege fees should be charged.

6. The original shop of the petitioner ('old premises') was falling within the distance of 500 mtrs. from National/State Highway. The petitioner's license was thus not renewed beyond 31st March, 2017. The petitioner procured new premises at Shop No.G/2, Survey No.7, Hissa No.1 to 5, 'F' Residency Scheme Tower, Tower No.3 in Wadgaon Sheri, Pune, District – Pune (hereinafter referred to as “new premises” for short). The new premises are also within limits of the Pune Municipal Corporation.

7. The Petitioner applied to respondent No.3 for shifting of the license from the old premises to the new premises. By an order dated 14th August, 2017, the respondent No.3 allowed the shifting of the license from the old premises to the new premises. In the said order it is specifically mentioned that since the premises are affected due to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is not required to pay the privilege fees as contemplated under Rule 4(b) of the Bombay Prohibition (Privileges Fees) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 1954” for short). The order for shifting of the license was passed on 14th August, 2017. The petitioner, however, could not shift the license in view of an existing condition which the petitioner realised later that the shop owners shall not make use, consume or vend any alcoholic drinks.

8. Thereupon by an application dated 18/8/2017, the petitioner requested the respondent No. 3 to cancel the said shifting order. Respondent No.3 by an order dated 18/8/2017 cancelled the shifting permission and directed the petitioner to procure new premises and apply accordingly.

9. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to mention that after the petitioner made an application for shifting of the license from old premises to new premises, the Apex Court by order dated 11th July, 2017 issued further directions that the prohibition mentioned in order dated 15/12/2016 shall n