The authority exercising administrative functions can review decisions without express enabling provisions; this does not apply to judicial or quasi-judicial powers.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the Principal Secretary, Maharashtra State Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision Application No.2/2022.

2. The controversy in the matter pertains to CL-III licence which was initially issued in favour of late Gangagoud Anantwar, deceased husband of original petitioner. After filing of the petition, the petitioner has expired and her two sons, a daughter and widow and sons of pre-deceased son are brought on record as legal representatives.

3. A licence for sale of country liquor in the form of CL-III was issued in the year 1973 in favour of one Gangagoud Bhimagoud Anantwar. This Gangagoud entered into a partnership for the purpose of country liquor business with respondent nos.5 and 6 on 16.07.1994. Deceased Gangagoud had 34% share and respondent nos.5 and 6 had 33% share each in the said firm. Respondent No.3 - Collector granted approval to the said firm and names of respondent nos.5 and 6 were also entered in CL-III licence along with deceased Gangagoud. Thereafter, deceased Gangagoud and respondent nos.5 and 6 executed a supplementary deed of partnership dated 20.07.1998. The supplementary deed of partnership dated 20.07.1998 enumerates the same terms and conditions as enumerated in deed of partnership dated 16.07.1994. Supplementary deed of partnership was executed since the earlier partnership deed dated 16.07.1994 was scribed on a stamp paper of inadequate denomination.

4. It appears that certain disputes had arisen between respondent nos.5 and 6 on one hand and deceased Gangagoud on the other, as a consequence of which Regular Civil Suit No.262/2003 was filed by respondent nos.5 and 6 against deceased Gangagoud and his son Shivaji. The said suit is filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 (plaintiffs) prayed for decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants (deceased Gangagoud and his son) from interfering with the business of country liquor shop. The matter appears to be amicably settled between the parties and accordingly, the suit came to be disposed of vide compromise decree dated 26.06.2003. After the compromise decree was passed, deceased Gangagoud expired on 23.03.2004. The deceased petitioner has filed the suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.137/2014 seeking declaration that compromise decree dated 26.06.2003 passed in the said Civil Suit is null and void and not binding on her. She also sought decree for perpetual injunction restraining respondent nos.5 and 6 (defendants) from causing interference with the business of country liquor shop. The said suit is pending for adjudication before the Civil Court.

5. After the demise of Gangagoud, on 23.03.2004, the petitioner initially filed an application dated 02.04.2004 and thereafter another application dated 28.05.2005 before respondent no.3 requesting for including her name in the licence and for deletion of the names of respondent nos.5 and 6 on the ground that partnership had come to an end. Respondent No.3 passed order dated 20.07.2008 recording that in view of demise of original licensee Gangagoud, CL-III licence in his name be transferred in the name of his widow i.e. the petitioner herein.

6. On 22.05.2012, respondent no.5 filed an application before respondent no.3 seeking review of the order dated