High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1)HOMEwp10661.21IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.10661 OF 2021NARESH YALLADAS LACHMAPUREVSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO.10791 OF 2021ANNASAHEB HARIBHAU JADHAV (DIED)THROUGH LEGAL HEIRABHIJIT ANNASAHEB JADHAVVSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSMr. Vikram S. Undre, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:07th OCTOBER, 2024PRONOUNCED ON:14th DECEMBER, 2024P. C. 1.The common questions arise for consideration inboth the petitions. 2.The petitioner in WP/10661/2021 has approached1 of 9 (2)HOMEwp10661.21this court challenging the judgment and order passed by thelearned Minister, Sate Excise dated 05-09-2019 bearing No.RVD-0819/Pra.Kra.259/188/State Excise-3 under the BombayProhibition Act. The respondents are the authorities under theState Excise Department.3.The petitioner in WP/10791/2021 has approachedthis court challenging the judgment and order passed by thelearned Minister, Sate Excise dated 05-09-2019 bearing No.RVD-0819/Pra.Kra.260/189/State Excise-3 under the BombayProhibition Act. The respondents are the authorities under theState Excise Department.4.The dispute is in narrow compass as to whether theinterest can be levied on the amount paid for renewal of licensefor the period for which the license was in dormant condition inview of section 49 of the Prohibition Act.5.The facts in WP/10661/2021 in short are that, the2 of 9
Legal Reasoning
(3)HOMEwp10661.21petitioner happens to be a partner in CL-III license No.138 (NewNo.90). Said license was not renewed from 1975 till 2019-2020.The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Minister, State Excise forrenewal of the license. The Hon’ble Minister, State Exciserenewed the license and permitted to shift the place of businessfrom Solapur to Shrikrishna Nagar Jalna. This was subject topayment of renewal fees alongwith interest on the said renewalfees. The petitioner deposited the entire renewal fees alongwithinterest as directed by the Hon’ble Minister,. He thus paidRs.13,00,723/-. Pursuant to the order passed by the learnedMinister, the Superintendent informed by communication dated23-07-2020 to pay renewal fee with interest. The petitioner,therefore, has approached this court. It is the case of thepetitioner that renewal fees from 1975 till 2019-2020 comes toRs.13,00,723/-. The license also came to be transferred fromBhandarkawathe, Tq. Solapur, Dist. Solapur to Jalna. Thepetitioner is aggrieved only to the extent of direction to depositthe interest on the renewal fees.3 of 9 (4)HOMEwp10661.216.The facts in WP/10791/2021 in short are that, thepetitioner has a license CL-III license No.139 at Wadala, Tq.Uttar Solapur, Dist. Solapur (New No.90). Said license was notrenewed from 1975 till 2019-2020. The petitioner approachedthe Hon’ble Minister, State Excise for renewal of the license. TheHon’ble Minister, State Excise renewed the license and permittedto shift the place of business from Solapur to Latur. This wassubject to payment of renewal fees alongwith interest on thesaid renewal fees. The petitioner deposited the entire renewalfees alongwith interest as directed by the Hon’ble Minister,. Hethus paid Rs.16,37,850/-. Pursuant to the order passed by thelearned Minister, the Superintendent informed bycommunication dated 23-07-2020 to pay renewal fee withinterest. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this court. Itis the case of the petitioner that renewal fees from 1975 till2019-2020 comes to Rs.16,37,850/-. The license also came to betransferred from Dist. Solapur to Latur. The petitioner isaggrieved only to the extent of direction to deposit the intereston the renewal fees.4 of 9 (5)HOMEwp10661.21The Common Submissions Are As Under:7.The learned advocate for the petitioners vehementlyargued that under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Actgives power to the Government to charge for permit ofmanufacture and sale of liquor. It is subject of renewal feeshowever, there is nothing to charge for interest on the liquorlicense for the period for which it was dormant. The order of thelearned Minister is, thus, without any provision of law. In thepresent case the amount of interest is equal to the amount ofrenewal fees and he prayed for refund of the said interestamount. He relied upon the order passed in the case of AshokPandurang Rane Vs State of Maharashtra in CA/2300/2019 inWP/13623/2018.8.At the outset the learned AGP submits that thepetitions are not maintainable as the impugned orders arechallenged after two years and thus there is delay and lacheswhich are not explained. The learned AGP on the other handopposed the petitions. He submits that when the learned5 of 9 (6)HOMEwp10661.21Minister has exercised the powers he has every authority tocharge the interest on the amount of renewal fees. The learnedMinister has exercised the powers under Section 138 of theMaharashtra Prohibition Act. He submits that in view of theMaharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 license renewal feeshas to be paid for every year before 31st March in view of Rule24(2-A) of the said Rules. If there is no renewal of license, thelicense seized to be in existence. Section 114 of the said Actprovides that expired license can be renewed by recovering thelicense fees with interest. He relied upon notification dated 18-05-1998. He submits that if in any case license is not renewed,same is to be renewed on paying requisite fees. When the licensefees is not paid it naturally carries interest. It is furthersubmitted that in fact now the petitions are not for challengingthe action of charging of interest but is for recovery of theamount of interest. He relied upon the order passed by thiscourt. He submits that issue of charge of interest under Section114 of the Act is referred to a larger bench in writ petition No.477/2020 and same is pending. He thus ultimately prayed for6 of 9 (7)HOMEwp10661.21rejection of the writ petition.9.It is thus clear that only question this court has toconsider is about the charging of interest on the renewal fees.10.The learned advocate for the petitioner has reliedupon the judgment in following case 1] WP/199/2006 Smt. KetiArdeshir Kapadia Vs The State of Maharashtra 2]WP/11765/2019 Shubhada Sharad Bhole Vs The State ofMaharashtra and 3] WP/1088/2021 Suresh ShantaramTodankar VS The State of Maharashtra. In the case of KetiKapadiya (supra) this court has held that there is no provision torecover interest over the license fees. Interest can be recoveredonly on the amount which is lent and the amount which is founddue or recoverable as debt for a period for which business wasnot being operated by the petitioner, no license fees could betreated as legally recoverable debt on the petitioner. In view ofthis recovery of interest is held to be not permissible under anycontract, usage or other legal provision. The order impugned in7 of 9 (8)HOMEwp10661.21the said petition for recovery was set aside to the extent ofinterest charged by authorities. In the case of Shubhada Bhole(supra) this court held that the authorities cannot levy interestin exercise of review jurisdiction. In the said case though theorder of renew license was passed on the recovery of entirelicense even from 01-04-1975 till 31-03-2014 and order waspassed even to shift the license in Nanded District. In reviewjurisdiction interest was directed to be recovered. In this viewthis court held that no interest could have been levied whileexercising review jurisdiction. While passing this order this courthas also considered the judgment of Keti Kapadiya (supra) andsome other judgments including the case of Suresh Todankar(supra). In the said case also in the order there was interestlevied however, in review, the government directed to payinterest on the fees. This court held that respondent-State lackstatutory powers to entertain the review and interest would nothave been directed to be paid.11.This court thus finds considerable force in the8 of 9 (9)HOMEwp10661.21argument of the learned advocate for the petitioner. The petitiontherefore deserves to be allowed. In view of the same, thepetitions stand allowed in terms of prayer clause-A. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]VishalK/HOMEwp10661.219 of 9