1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2547/2010. 1) Smt. Vijayabai w/o Bajranglal Jaiswal and another. - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The Hon’ble Minister, State Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.HV Patil,Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.VG Shelke,AGP for Resp.Nos.1 to 3; Mr.RF Totla, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 7th October,2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally. 2) The petitioners question legality of the orders passed by Hon’ble Minister dated nil 2 January, 2010 (day is not mentioned in the order) 3) A long drawn chequered history of controversy is projected by both the sides. However, it needs to be put in a condensed form. Bajranglal Jaiswal, a CL-III license holder had breathed his last on 09.03.1999. His wife, i.e. petitioner no.1 – Smt. Vijayabai sought transfer of the license from the competent authority, the learned Collector, Hingoli. The license conditions warranted ‘No objection’ from other legal representatives of the deceased. It was so incorporated by way of consent letters by the legal representatives of Bajranglal Jaiswal, viz. his son – Atul Bajranglal Jaiswal and Jitendra Bajranglal Jaiswal (i.e. Respondent No.4 in WP). Such consent letters are dated 23.03.2000 and 24.03.2000. It was based on these consent letters and statements recorded, the learned Collector, transferred the CL-III license in the name of petitioner no.1 – Smt.Vijayabai. Thereafter she desired that her son, viz. Atul to be incorporated as a partner, she applied, it was objected by Respondent No.4 – Jitendra. That objection was negated and it reached finality. Respondent No.4 – Jitendra moved an application, seeking inclusion of his name in license in question. He did not succeed. He moved to the appellate authority, the learned Commissioner, he lost, he then moved a revision 3 before the Hon’ble Minister and in such exercise, since the Hon’ble Minister did not adhere to the pleadings of the parties, this Court in WP No. 7595/2008 remitted the matter to the Hon’ble Minister to consider these events. 4) Noticing the lacunae in the pleadings, Respondent No.4 applied for amendment to the Memorandum of Revision before the learned Minister. It is a matter of record, in spite of there being a reply from the petitioner, the Hon’ble Minister did not decide the application for amendment and straight way, presuming the said amendment is implemented, directed the learned Collector to cause an inquiry afresh. This exercise of the Hon’ble Minister is questioned. 5) To revert back to the above referred history, it is demonstrated in the pleadings before the Appellate Authority and the Revisional authority (page 51, 52, paras 4 and 7); pages 71, 72 (paras 1 and 7), the Respondent no.4 did not doubt genuineness of his consent recorded in favour of his mother, petitioner no.1 dated 23.03.2000 or dated 24.03.2000. It was surreptitiously, all of sudden, by virtue of the amendment before the Hon’ble Minister, he portrayed a new case that, after death of his father, he met with an accident, he was not in a position to understand consequences as he was in 4 coma for about one month. The Hon’ble Minister was not expected to dwell upon this plea, which has ramification distorting acquiescing rights vested in the petitioners by virtue of legal process. 6) The other aspect in the matter is, heirship certificate was sought by the Respondent No.4, which he succeeded, however challenge to it by the petitioners yield its denial. Grant of heirship certificate is now a question of Revision at the instance of Respondent No.4. As on today, it is apparent, there is no heirship certificate in favour of Respondent No.4 This aspect also ought to have been considered by the Hon’ble Minister while dealing with the order of inquiry to the learned Collector to decide the claims and contentions of Respondent no.4. 7) Taking survey of all the facts, I find the order under challenge of the Hon’ble Minister is beyond the scope of powers vested in terms of Section 148 of the Bombay Prohibition Act as revisional powers are to be exercised in exceptional cases and only in the event of the authorities noticing any illegality or irregularity, not properly adhered by the lower authorities. Both these precautions are not taken by the Hon’ble Minister. Consequently, the order calls for interference. The writ petition is allowed as above. The impugned order is set 5 aside. No costs. 8) Heard. The observations made in this order shall not be taken against the Respondent No.4, if he challenges grant of license or move any other forum. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/