Vilasini Anil Pawar & Anr. v. ROHIT W. JOSHI, J
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD905 WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2019 Vilasini Anil Pawar And AnotherVERSUSM/s B G Bhandkar And Co Partnership Firm Through Existing PartnersAnd Others...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Vaidya Ameet RaveendraAGP for Respondents-State: Mr. D. B. Bhange Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4 : Mr. Nangare P. R. ...CORAM :ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.Dated: August 25, 2026PER COURT :-
The present petition is filed in order to assail the order dated24/08/2017 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, State Excise, whereby therevision preferred by respondent No.4 under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 came to be allowed.
The petitioners and respondent No.4 are real sisters and brother. Their father, late Babanrao, had 50% share in a liquor licence bearingFL-2 Licence No.17-CL/FL/TOD-3, Licence No.3. After the demise of thefather, the name of respondent No.4 came to be included in thelicence. The petitioner raised an objection to the inclusion of the nameof respondent No.4. Initially, the licence was suspended by thelicensing authority, i.e. the Collector, vide order dated 25/03/2015.Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal against the said order, whichcame to be dismissed by the Commissioner of State Excise vide orderPage 1 of 3 905 WP 638-2019dated 19/12/2016. However, as stated above, the Hon’ble Ministerallowed the revision filed by respondent No.4.
The contention of the petitioners is that they are also a Class-Ilegal heir of their father and, therefore, after the demise of father, their names also ought to have been included in the licence. Asagainst this, the contention of respondent No.4 is that the father hadexecuted a Will in his favour and, in accordance with the Will, hisname should be included in the licence in place of the deceasedfather, to the exclusion of the other legal heirs.
The Will in question was challenged in Special Civil Suit No.65of 2015 filed by the present petitioner No.2. The suit has beendismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 20/02/2025 passed bythe learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. TheWill, on the basis of which the claim of respondent No.4 is based, hasbeen upheld by the learned Trial Court. The learned Advocate forrespondent No.4 has tendered a copy of the said Judgment forperusal of this Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner doesnot dispute that the suit has been dismissed. Perusal of the Judgment clearly indicates that the Will in question has been upheldPage 2 of 3 905 WP 638-2019by the learned Trial Court. In view of the aforesaid, the claim of thepetitioners cannot be accepted.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as tocosts. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )vj gawade/-.Page 3 of 3
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.