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 confirmed by 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 following three 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 the petitioner 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 circular dated 27.07.2001 such breaches could be compounded by imposing penalty instead of cancellation of the licence. As these grounds were not considered by 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 out that 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 read with section 65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 was registered against 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 and having gone through the order dated 31.01.2022, it reveals that the order was 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 three breaches are compoundable in nature, whereby penalty should have been imposed on the petitioner instead of cancelling his licence. As far as registration of the criminal offence is concerned, same was nowhere mentioned 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 statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented 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 to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. "

In view thereof, I am inclined to allow the writ petition partly, by remitting 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 decide it afresh after considering whether the breaches which are mentioned in its order, 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 notice to 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/