The court emphasized the need for fair and reasonable opportunity for the petitioners to present their case and the duty of the Commissioner to act strictly in accordance with the law.

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The affidavit in reply taken on record. The petitioners' counsel states on instructions, they do not wish to file any rejoinders.

2. By these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short, 'the MP Act').

3. The petitioners' senior counsel Mr. Anturkar has invited our attention to the facts and circumstances set out in Writ Petition(Lodging) No.3255 of 2018.

4. He would submit that these facts are common to almost every Petition, which is on our Board with some marginal difference.

5. The argument of the senior counsel is that each of these petitioners are licence holders and, under the MP Act so also the rules framed there under, it is a privilege of the State Government to grant permission or licence to sell liquor.

6. At the relevant time, these licenses were subsisting. During the course of their subsistence, it was noticed by the authorities that there was a alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the licence as also of the MP Act and the relevant rules. The incidents narrated are that there was a sale of liquor, which is not permissible, except by the mode set out in the law and the terms and conditions of the licence. There is nothing according to the authorities like home delivery of liquor. The allegations are that contrary to these conditions, the licence holders indulged in such home delivery of liquor. This was noticed and the Flying Squad was directed by the fourth respondent to the Writ Petitions to seal the premises. Under the oral directions issued by the Commissioner of State Excise (for short, 'the Commissioner), the sealing of the premises took place. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by such act, the petitioners approached the Collector of the concerned District and the Collector, after hearing the petitioners, firstly, passed an interim order and thereafter a final order allowing the Appeal. The Court's attention has been invited to a copy of this order at page 81 [Exhibit-F] of the paper book.

7. Further, insofar as the interim order of the Collector is concerned, the Commissioner, on oral directions issued to the Superintendent, called upon him to file Appeal before herself and she stayed the interim order of the Collector that too, without hearing the petitioners and this resulted in the seal not being removed and the premises being under lock and key of the authorities. Consequently the premises or the establishments could not be reopened. This conduct continued for after the Collector passed the final order, the Superintendent was directed to prefer an Appeal on that very date and the Commissioner as an Appellate Authority, stayed the Collector’s order. It is in these circumstances that Mr.Anturkar would submit that the petitioners may not possess a fundamental right to sell or deal in liquor, but surely under the privilege granted by the State, if the licences have been issued and they are in operation, then, so long as they are not cancelled or terminated in accordance with law, there is no power to direct sealing of the premises. Further, the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated by such high handed action. The Appellate Authority having passed an order in favour of the petitioners, that authority cannot then be humiliated or embarrassed by calling upon the subordinate to such Appellate Authority, namely, the Superintendent of State Excise, to challenge his orders before the Commissioner. This means that the Commissioner has ensured that the injustice to the petitioners is perpetuated and that because her oral directions have not been abided by the concerned statutory functionary, out of sheer vengeance, she has heard the Appeal and interlocutory applications on that very date and stayed the order impugned before her. This is a mockery of t