1 909-WP-11765-2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.11765 OF 2019

Shubhada Sharad Bhole

CL-III Licence No.156

at Bhadur, Taluka Biloli,

District: Nanded, Through

General Power of Attorney

of Ganesh Yeashwantrao Nandewar,

Age: 48 years, Occu: Business,

R/o Sahyog Nagar, Shelgaon Road,

Naigaon, Khairgaon, Nanded.

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,

through Secretary, Government of

Maharashtra, Home (Transport)

Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai – 400 032.

2. The Minister of State

Excise, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032

3. The Collector of Nanded

State Excise Department,

District – Nanded

… Respondents

…

Mr. Mukul Kulkarni holding for Mr. V. P. Latange, Advocate for the

Petitioner

Mr. S. W. Munde, AGP for the Respondents/State

…

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE : 7^th September, 2022

2 909-WP-11765-2019.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the

consent of parties.

2.

Challenge in this petition is to the order passed by respondent

no.2 in Revision No.RVD/0918/217/183/EXC-3 by exercising review

jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short

‘the said Act’).

.

Facts in brief are as follows:

3.

CL-III licence was granted to the petitioner’s father at Murud,

District – Raigad. In the year 1976, petitioner’s father applied for

renewal of his license. The same was not considered during his life

time and therefore, petitioner’s mother filed revision before

respondent no.2. By order dated 04-12-2013, respondent no.2

allowed revision and directed to renew license by recovering entire

licence fee from 01-04-1975 to 31-03-2014 and also granted prayer

for shifting of licence in Nanded District.

4.

Accordingly, on payment of Rs.10,96,250/-, the Collector,

Raigad renewed license upto 31-03-2014. On 19-07-2017,

petitioner’s mother expired. All legal heirs of petitioner’s mother

consented for transfer of license in the name of the petitioner on

13-08-2018.

3 909-WP-11765-2019.odt

5.

On 04-07-2019, respondent no.2 reviewed earlier order dated

04-12-2013 and directed to recover a sum of Rs.19,80,084/-

towards interest on the license fee from 01-04-1975 to 31-03-2014

and further directed to recover future interest till payment of the

same. This order is impugned in the present petition.

6.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned

order by relying on the decisions of Smt. Keti Ardeshir Kapadia

Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

in

Writ Petition

No.199/2006, Maheshprasad Dwarkadas Jaiswal & Another

Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2017 DGLS

(Bom.) 1923,

Ashok Pandurang Rane Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Others in Civil Application No.2300/2019 in

Writ Petition No.13623/2018, Shri. Abhijit Ramrao Bachewar

Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition

No.3315/2015, Somnath Pandurang Kate Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.12204/2019 and Shri.

Suresh Shantaram Todankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Through Principal, Secretary (State Excise) & Ors. in Civil

Writ Petition No.1088/2021 along with connected Civil Writ

Petitions.

7.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has vehemently

opposed the petition by placing reliance on the affidavit-in-reply

4 909-WP-11765-2019.odt

filed by the respondents. He submits that since the impugned order

is rightly passed, after conducting inquiry, by exercising review

jurisdiction, the same is not liable to be interfered with.

8.

I have duly considered the rival submissions advanced by the

learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Assistant

Government Pl