AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
In the present petition, challenge is to the order passed by learned Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, dated 26.03.2021, whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner against the order of the Collector.
It is the submission of the present petitioner that he has been allotted C.L.-III Licence No.71/1996-97 of Mouja Darwha, District Yavatmal and same was time to time renewed by him. It is claimed that on 24.09.2014, he was permitted to transfer licence from Pusad to Darwha. After that on 01.06.2015 complaint was lodged by respondent No.3, alleging that, liquor shop of petitioner is having permission to have Entry gate from East side but he has put entry gate from Western side. Petitioner pointed out to the Collector that the entrance was same as it shown in sanction map and produced the relevant documents. However, learned Collector by his order dated 28.04.2016 cancelled the C.L. III licence of petitioner for breach of condition of licence.
The petitioner, against the order of Collector, Yavatmal preferred statutory appeal on substantial grounds before the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. The Commissioner of State Excise, has passed the following final order in the present matter:
“The appeal is allowed only if the distance is more than 200 mtrs. irrespective of the position of door. Else the impugned order is upheld.”
The perusal of this order do not show that same is based upon any concrete findings recorded in the impugned order. The findings which are recorded by the Commissioner of State Excise in the impugned order is that he was not agreed with the contention of the respondent that as per Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, the distance is to be measured as ordinarily a pedestrian reaches the liquor shop. Then he recorded the said provision for distance between two shops to be 200 mtrs. as provided under Rule 24(5) of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, and the distance restrictions from education and religious institution is provided under Rule 24 (4) of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules. But he stated that Rule 24(5) of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules is a later Rule and explanation for measuring distance cannot be applied by the said Rule. On the basis of this finding, passed the above said order in the matter.
In the present matter, the Commissioner failed to consider the fact that the issue which was raised about the Entry gate of the shop should be from East side or West side, the distance as provided under Section 24 (5) of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules was not a dispute raised before him in the matter. From finding recorded by learned Commissioner, nowhere shows any discussion on the material issues which was raised before him. In the impugned order passed by respondent-Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, seems to be contrary to the factual as well as legal position. So also, same is cryptic in nature. In the circumstances, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai dated 26.03.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai to decide the same on its own merits.
iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai on 21.09.2026.
The Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, shall make endeavor to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.