-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.4131 of 2007 Nitin Eknath Bhosale ..Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Shri D.B.Sawant for petitioner. Shri A.A.Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General with A.G.P. for respondent nos.1,3 and 4. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIARI J. 7th January, 2008 7th January, 2008 7th January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Shri Sawant assails the order passed by the Revisional Authority, namely, Minister of Prohibition and State Excise, which sets aside the order of Commissioner of State Excise. 2. The order under challenge interferes with the Commissioner’s order and directs that liquor shop which was to be conducted upon transfer by the petitioner should not be allowed to operate on account of complaints from the residents within the area. These persons had complained to the authorities and initially a direction was issued to the petitioner not to operate the shop. Aggrieved by that, he went before the Commissioner who set aside that order. The -2- aggrieved persons, namely, the residents approached the Minister in revisional jurisdiction and he has not only upheld the order of the authority imposing restrictions on the petitioner and preventing operation of the liquor business but also questioned the transfer which was permitted. 3. Now, before me, limited grievance of Shri Sawant is that the petitioner alone is targeted. There are other liquor shops operating within the area and if it is proved that there is Kabrasthan nearby so also educational institutions, then, all such shops are also affecting the law and order and peace and tranquility of the area in question. These shops are also creating nuisance but they are left untouched. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court has already settled this position in law. In Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co.and another reported in A.I.R.2003 S.C.3983, the Supreme Court holds thus: "14.....It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not -3- make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case; direction should be given for doing another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Art.14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "the Constitution") cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that wrong has been committed on some other cases by introducing a concept of negative eaquality respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality." Article 14 does not know of any such discrimination in as much as no right can be based on illegalities. No one can approach the Court of law and seek continuation of the -4- illegalities. In such circumstances, there is no basis for the submission of Shri Sawant. However, if the position is what is narrated by Shri Sawant and prevailing even today at site and then it is for the State to settle such matter as is permissible in law even with regard to the other liquor shops. Collector of Satara, therefore, to take such steps as are permissible in law with regard to other liquor shops and the petitioner can also approach him if he has any such grievance. It is for the Collector and other appropriate authorities to take any decision which is in public interest. However, the petitioner failing to make out any case of the order under challenge being vitiated by any error apparent or perversity, there is no reason to interfere with the same. Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)