Writ Petition No. 13988 of 2023 · Bombay High Court

1 WP / 13988 / 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD1038 WRIT PETITION NO. 13988 OF 2023TANAJI DEVRAO LAKADEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS...Advocate for petitioner : Mr. V.S. UndreAGP for the respondent – State : Mr. D.R.Korde... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 17 JANUARY 2026PER COURT :Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

By way of present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated31.01.2022 passed by the District Collector, Osmanabad, whereby the FL-IIIlicence of the petitioner came to be cancelled. The said order was confirmedby order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, Mumbai and the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by learned Minister, StateExcise, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

Mr. Undre, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that asurprise visit was made at the hotel owned by the petitioner wherein followingthree breaches were found :-अ.क्र.मि(cid:4)ळून आलेल्या मि(cid:15)संगती उल्लंघन केलेला मिनय(cid:4) 01मि(cid:15)मि(cid:25)त न(cid:4)ुन्यातील रजि(cid:30)स्टर एफ एल आर - ३ (A) अनुज्ञप्तीमिनरीक्षणा(cid:15)ेळी सादर केली ना(cid:25)ी.(cid:4)ुंबई मि(cid:15)देश (cid:4)द्य मिनय(cid:4) 1953 (cid:4)धीलमिनय(cid:4) 49, 53, 58 (cid:15) शट. क्र(cid:4)ांक 9चे उल्लंघन केले आ(cid:25)े.02नोकरना(cid:4)े सादर केले ना(cid:25)ी.03अनुज्ञप्तीच्या (cid:4)ं(cid:30)ूर (cid:30)ागे(cid:4)ध्ये बदल केले Therefore, on the ground of these breaches, FL-III licence was cancelled. 2 WP / 13988 / 20234.A show cause notice dated 22.12.2021 was given to thepetitioner to which he had replied stating that the said notice was not legal. He further submits that as per section 104 of Maharashtra Prohibition Act,1949, all these breaches are compoundable in nature and in view of circulardated 27.07.2001 such breaches could be compounded by imposing penaltyinstead of cancellation of the licence. As these grounds were not consideredby the Collector, appellate authority and the revisional authority, he prays forsetting the order of cancellation of the licence.

Per contra, learned AGP supports the order passed by the District Collector, appellate authority and revisional authority by pointing outthat a crime no. 411 of 2021 punishable under section 188, 268, 569, 294, 34of IPC read with section 33(w), 313 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 readwith section 65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 was registeredagainst the petitioner and same is pending and, therefore, the learned AGPsubmits that the licence was properly cancelled by the authorities.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties andhaving gone through the order dated 31.01.2022, it reveals that the orderwas passed only on basis of three breaches but in view of section 104 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and Circular dated 27.07.2001, all threebreaches are compoundable in nature, whereby penalty should have beenimposed on the petitioner instead of cancelling his licence. As far asregistration of the criminal offence is concerned, same was nowherementioned in the order of cancellation of licence by the Collector and, therefore, the authorities cannot supplant the reasons subsequently.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gilland Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851 hasheld in paragraph no. 8 as under :-“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutoryfunctionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validitymust be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot besupplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. 3 WP / 13988 / 2023 Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes tocourt on account of a challenge, get validated by additional groundslater brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji "Public orders, publicly made, inexercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light ofexplanations subsequently given by the officer making the order ofwhat he meant, or of what was in mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have publiceffect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those towhom they are addressed and must be construed objectively withreference to the language used in the order itself. "

In view thereof, I am inclined to allow the writ petition partly, byremitting the matter to the Collector to decide the same afresh.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :ORDERI]Writ petition is partly allowed. II]The order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the District Collector, Osmanabad, order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner of StateExcise, Mumbai and the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by learned Minister, State Excise, Mantralaya, Mumbai are quashed and set aside. III]The matter is remanded to the Collector, Osmanabad to decideit afresh after considering whether the breaches which are mentioned in itsorder, are compoundable or not in view of section 104 of the MaharashtraProhibition Act and the Circular dated 27.07.2001. IV]If there are other breaches, then the Collector shall give noticeto the petitioner in respect of the same and after considering the reply, if any, submitted by the petitioner, the necessary order be passed. V]The learned Collector to complete the entire exercise within aperiod of four (4) months from today. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGEarp/