The suspension of a CL-III license due to a dispute among legal heirs of the deceased license holder was not justified and did not benefit any party, including the State. The State's policy aimed to safeguard government revenue and permit business to run during disputes pertaining to liquor licenses.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 06/05/2022, passed by the respondent No.1-Collector of State Excise, whereby license for country liquor, i.e. CL-III license has been suspended, as a consequence of which, the business of selling country liquor undertaken by the petitioner No.1 has come to a standstill. The petitioners contend that the impugned order is in the teeth of law laid down by this Court in the context of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act and Rules”).

4. The aforesaid license was originally issued in the name of one Laxmibai Narayanlal Jaiswal. It was later transferred in the name of her adopted son Mohanbabu Jaiswal, i.e. the husband of the petitioner No.1. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Mohanbabu Jaiswal inducted the petitioner No.1, i.e. his wife, as a partner and formed a partnership firm. It is further claimed that the said license was then permitted by the Collector to be recorded in the name of the said Mohanbabu Jaiswal and the petitioner No.1 as partners. The partnership deed was executed on 12/12/2014. The said Mohanbabu Jaiswal also executed a registered Will on 24/06/2014, wherein he referred to the said CL-III license and provided as to the manner in which the license would devolve.

5. The said Mohanbabu Jaiswal died on 26/12/2019, leading to dispute amongst the parties i.e. his widow, daughter (petitioners) and two sons (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein). In fact, the dispute has its origin in a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.1 of 2015, filed by the respondent No.3 for declaration, partition and perpetual injunction against his parents, i.e. Mohanbabu Jaiswal and the petitioner No.1. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction at Exhibit-5 was filed by the respondent No.3, while the defendants, i.e. Mohanbabu Jaiswal and the petitioner No.1 also filed an application for temporary injunction at Exhibit-22. A common order was passed by the Trial Court on the said applications, whereby the application at Exhibit-5 filed by the respondent No.3 was rejected and the application filed by Mohanbabu Jaiswal and the petitioner No.1 at Exhibit-22 was allowed. As a consequence, the respondent No.3 stood restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of Mohanbabu Jaiswal and the petitioner No.1 over the country liquor shop, being run on the strength of the aforesaid CL-III license. The respondent No.3 was also restrained from obstructing Mohanbabu Jaiswal and the petitioner No.1 from carrying on business of country liquor. The said suit is still pending.

6. The bitterness that ensued due to the orders passed in the said suit stood aggravated upon the death of Mohanbabu Jaiswal on 26/12/2019, as respondent Nos.3 and 4 started asserting rights as legal heirs of Mohanbabu Jaiswal in the country liquor business. The petitioner No.2 is the daughter of petitioner No.1 and she has not raised any claim in respect of the CL-III license and the country liquor business.

7. On 31/01/2020, the respondent No.3 moved an application before the respondent No.2, i.e. the Superintendent of State Excise, for inclusion of names of all the legal heirs of Mohanbabu Jaiswal in the CL-III license. The respondent No.2 directed the Inspector of Excise to investigate into the matter and to place his report for consideration. The petitioner No.1 filed a detailed objection before the respondent No.2. On 03/03/2021, the respondent No.4, being the other son of petitioner No.1, approached the respondent No.2, stating that the CL-III license should not be renewed without his written consent.

8. Eventually, the respondent No.1-Collector conducted hearing on the applications moved by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the objection raised by the petitioner No.1. By order date