AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties
The present petition challenges the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by Respondent No.1, whereby the revision preferred by the Petitioner was rejected and the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 was confirmed. The Petitioner also challenges the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.3 – Collector, whereby the Petitioner's FL-III licence was suspended with a direction to shift the licenced premises, which order was subsequently modified by Respondent No.2 and the licence came to be cancelled.
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the Petitioner submitted an application for grant of FL-III licence on 13.03.2023 under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder. The premises proposed for the licence was a rented premises belonging to Jankiram Govind Zade, situated at Chandrapur. The Petitioner relied upon the rent agreement dated 09.03.2023, permission and certificates issued by the Gram Panchayat, Dhaba, regarding the construction and its use as commercial premises. After considering the material and the recommendation of Respondent No.4 – Superintendent of State Excise, the Collector granted the FL-III licence on 21.07.2023 under Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, which was thereafter renewed for the year 2024-25.
Respondent No.5 had raised an objection to the grant of licence and had also produced Namuna-8 of Property No.1127, wherein there was a remark that the property had been constructed under the Gharkul/Ramai Aawas Yojana. Respondent No.5 thereafter filed Writ Petition No.4114/2024 before this Court challenging the grant of licence. By order dated 15.07.2024, this Court directed the Collector to consider and decide the representation of Respondent No.5 on its own merits. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector, State Excise, Rajura, who submitted his report dated 07.08.2024, referring to the report dated 01.08.2024 of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Gondpipri. The said report recorded that the premises formed part of land allotted under the Ramai Aawas Yojana and that the construction was completed during the year 2013-2014.
By order dated 04.10.2024, Respondent No.3 – Collector, after issuing show-cause notice dated 04.09.2024 and considering the Petitioner's reply and hearing dated 23.09.2024, held that the licenced premises was constructed under the Government welfare scheme and could not be used for commercial purposes. The Collector, therefore, directed that the licence premises be shifted to another place and, till such shifting, suspended the licence under Section 54(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The Petitioner and Respondent No.5 preferred appeals before Respondent No.2. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected, whereas the appeal of Respondent No.5 was allowed and the order of the Collector was modified by cancelling the FL-III licence and refusing permission to shift the licence.
I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the authorities failed to appreciate that the premises in which the Petitioner was carrying on business was a new construction, separately permitted by the Gram Panchayat, Dhaba, and was not the original construction made under the Ramai Aawas Yojana. It is submitted that the Petitioner had obtained the licence after the Collector had scrutinized the relevant documents and after an enquiry by the State Excise authorities. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had neither committed any fraud nor made any wilful misrepresentation and that the authorities failed to properly appreciate the 7/12 extract, Gram Panchayat permissions, construction certificates and rent agreement dated 09.03.2023. According to the Petitioner, there was consequently no violation attracting Section 54 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner was admittedly conducting the licenced business from Property No.1127, which was constructed under the Ramai Aawas Yojana for the benefit of Scheduled Caste and Neo-Buddhist beneficiaries and was meant for residential use only. It is submitted that the Government Resolution dated 15.11.2008 governing the scheme prohibited the beneficiary from renting, transferring or using the premises for any commercial activity. The Gram Panchayat certificate dated 03.05.2024 also records that Jankiram Govind Zade was a beneficiary of the scheme for the year 2013-2014 and had received Government assistance of Rs.68,500/- for construction of the house bearing Property No.1127. It is therefore submitted that the grant of an FL-III licence on such premises was impermissible and that the subsequent verification justified cancellation of the licence under Section 54(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
It is further submitted that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1325/2025, challenging the orders dated 05.02.2025 and 04.10.2024 during pendency of the revision. By order dated 11.03.2025, this Court observed that the challenge to those orders was already the subject matter of revision before Respondent No.1 and directed the Petitioner to approach the revisional authority for expeditious consideration of the application for stay, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The revisional authority thereafter passed the order dated 23.07.2025 rejecting the revision. The Respondents also submit that the findings recorded by the authorities are based upon the reports of the State Excise Inspector and the Block Development Officer and are essentially findings of fact.
In the view of the arguments canvassed by the parties and the material placed on record, the controversy that arises for consideration is whether the premises bearing Property No.1127, Mouza Dhaba, from which the Petitioner was operating the FL-III licence No.549/2023-24, was in fact a premises constructed under the Ramai Aawas Yojana and, if so, whether its use for running a liquor business justified suspension/cancellation of the licence under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The further question is whether the authorities were justified in treating the subsequent verification regarding the nature and permissible use of the premises as sufficient to cancel the licence granted on 21.07.2023.
Rival contentions call for my consideration.
As can be seen from the order of the first authority, i.e. of the Respondent No. 3, the said authority by resorting to the provisions of Section 54(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, has not cancelled the licence of the petitioner permanently but suspended the same. It has also granted permission to him to submit a proposal for shifting the said licence. Furthermore, by resorting to Rule 46-B of the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, it has directed that till the same is shifted, the licence would remain suspended. The Appellate Authority, i.e. the Commissioner, in turn, vide order dated 05.02.2025, has recorded a finding as under:
“8.I record my observations as under : The impugned order is speaking one and passed after due diligence. It is clear that the licence holder has taken advantage of Government Scheme and obtained premises for her residence. She has been using a place of residence for commercial purposes of running restaurant and bar. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that the licence has been obtained by wilful misrepresentation by hiding the fact that the premises has been obtained from the Government as a residence. It is not a review of a Collector's own decision as a fraud was played upon the Collector while obtaining the licence and once the Collector became aware of the fraud he has exercised powers granted to him vide section 54(1)(e).
It is pertinent to note here that the Collector has allowed shifting of the licence to a new appropriate premises and has suspended the licence till such premises is obtained or such shifting is allowed. It is clear that the licence cannot be allowed to function at this place as the premises is not fit to conduct any commercial activity. The licence holder if she so wishes can opt for new premises but it will have to be new business. Instead of shifting her licence, a licence which has been obtained by misrepresentation is void ab initio, cannot be shifted. It is better that she opts for a new licence at a new suitable premises. Hence, I modify the impugned order to the extent that the licence stands cancelled instead of suspended. The stay granted by this authority is vacated. With these directions both the appeals are disposed off.”
The Respondent No. 1 in revision has confirmed the findings of the Respondent No. 2 Commissioner. The Respondent No. 1 has recorded a finding of fact that the premises in question was given to the landlord under the Ramai Aawas Yojana, wherein it is expressly prohibited to rent out the said premises. It has further recorded a finding that the Petitioner has obtained the FL-III licence by misrepresentation and by playing fraud on the authorities. It has, therefore, went on to cancel the licence.
The argument by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the authorities did not appreciate the new construction which was granted by the Gram Panchayat, Dabha, as shown in the 7/12 extract is essentially a question of fact, which would be outside the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
Thus, the finding of fact have been recorded by all the authorities below. The said findings are based on material on record. Therefore, the contentions regarding the Gram Panchayat according no objection, as has been sought to be argued by the Petitioner, is of no avail. Only because the Gram Panchayat has accorded no objection, cannot ipso facto clothe the Petitioner with the right to run the business from the premises from where it was expressly prohibited.
Further argument by the learned Counsel for Petitioner is that under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, authority has the power to suspend licence and under Rule 46-B of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, it can also permit transfer of licence from one site to another. However, in my considered opinion, power under Rule 46-B is subservient to power under Section 54. If the authority records a finding under Section 54 and cancels or suspends a licence, it cannot resort to a Rule much less Rule 46-B as rule is always subservient to a statutory provision. Such an interpretation if accepted, would be contrary to well settled legal principles.
The petition is, therefore, misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
The petition is rejected accordingly. No order as to costs.