1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6486 OF 2009 Bhagwan R.Patil .. Petitioner Vs The Collector of Sangli, & ors .. Respondents Mrs Veena Thadhani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Deshpande, AGP, for the Respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 03/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard Mrs Thadhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Deshpande, learned A.G.P, for the respondents. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking revalidation of the sanction for grant of licence in Form FL II dated 2.11.1973 issued in favour of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner has been rejected on two grounds: firstly, that the petitioner failed to prove that he had submitted revalidation T 2 application in the year 1986, and secondly, on the ground that he is seeking revalidation of the sanction for grant of licence after more than 30 years and, that too, in the light of the fact that he did not comply with all the formalities within the time stipulated for issuance of the licence and for starting the business as provided in the letter dated 8.2.1974 issued by the Superintendent, State Excise Department, Sangli. Admittedly, the licence was never issued since the petitioner did not comply with the formalities within the time stipulated. 3. I have perused the impugned orders and the other material on record. There is a clear finding of fact recorded by the authorities below that the application dated 20.3.1986 for revalidation of the sanction for grant of licence was not on record. Even the copy of the said application placed on record is not legible. Moreover, no entry of the application dated 20.3.1986 was found in the Inward register maintained by the Superintendent’s State Excise office for the period between 20.3.1986 and 30.6.1986, and hence, it is observed by the authorities below that the possibility of the said application being bogus could not be ruled out. It is against this backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to various Circulars/Instructions issued by the Department from 3 time to time and also to the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.639 of 1994 dated 1.9.04 to submit that the circular dated 6.7.1989 has been set aside by this court and in view thereof the authorities below have wrongly taken into consideration the cut off date while rejecting the application made by the petitioner. She placed heavy reliance upon the several Circulars/Instructions issued by the Government in support of her contentions. My specific attention was drawn to the letters/instructions dated 26.7.1983, 2.2.1984 and 23.3.1984 in support of the petitioner’s claim for revalidation. The submissions of Ms Thadhani, in my opinion, deserve to be rejected for more than one reasons. Firstly, the 1989 Circular/Instructions was set aside by this court in Writ Petition No. 630 of 1994 on the ground that it was not published in the Official Gazette as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 139 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. It is pertinent to note that none of the Circulars/Instructions on which the petitioner rests his claim seeking revalidation of the sanction for grant of licence, was published in the Official Gazette and on this ground alone his claim deserves to be rejected. Secondly, there are concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below holding that the application of the petitioner itself was not on record and the copy thereof produced by the petitioner also 4 cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that there was no entry in the inward register maintained by the Superintendent, State Excise Department, showing that the application was submitted by the petitioner. In the circumstances, this petition deserves no interference by this court and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)