WP No. 365/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 365 OF 2011 Prakash s/o. Mannulal Jaiswal, Age 52 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o. HUDCO, Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, State Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Collector, Aurangabad. 3. The Superintendent of State Excise, CBS Road, near Hotel Janki, Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21st February, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2. Advocate Shri. Mantri for petitioner points out that the CL III license of petitioner is not being used since last five years. The petitioner could find a suitable place at plot No. 25, Renuka Complex and sought sanction to shift to it. All competent authorities have cleared the site, but ultimately, the respondent No. 2 Collector has after accepting the WP No. 365/11 2 objections of two private persons namely Sou. Suradkar and Shri. Patil refused necessary sanction. He contends that such individual's opposition is not relevant in the scheme of either Bombay Prohibition Act or the relevant Rules framed thereunder. He points out that Shri. Patil himself is having beer shop adjacent to plot No. 25 i.e. on plot No. 26 and hence, because of business rivalry he has along with Sou. Suradkar raised some objections. His effort is to demonstrate to the Court the grievance of Shri. Patil or Sou. Suradkar could not have been looked into by the Collector. 3. Learned A.G.P. points that under section 137 of Bombay Prohibition Act, the petitioner has got remedy to file appeal before the Commissioner of State Excise. It is further pointed out by him that neither Sou. Suradkar nor Shri. Patil are joined as parties. According to the learned A.G.P. in this situation petition needs to be dismissed. 3. The facts do not appear to be in much dispute. Plot No. 25 at Renuka Apartment to which the petitioner wants to shift is cleared by all authorities and it appears that there cannot be any objection to that site in the light of provisions of Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 framed under Bombay Prohibition Act. If the public at large has to oppose, the procedure therefore is also prescribed and there is no such opposition. 4. Only by mentioning two persons and opposition by them, the WP No. 365/11 3 Collector has found it not proper to permit shifting. The fact that Shri. Shrimantrao Bhaurao Patil is also having his beer shop in adjacent plot i.e. plot No. 26 has not been looked into. It is pointed out to this Court that Sou. Surwadkar is Ward Member. Why Ward Member is not opposing the beer shop in plot No. 26 and why she is opposing the shop of present petitioner, is also not clear. 5. However, both these persons are not parties before this Court. 6. In this situation, interest of justice will be met with by directing the Collector to hear the petitioner again and to pass appropriate orders in the matter as per Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 as early as possible and in any case within seven days from the date of communication of this order to him. The impugned order dated 10.12.2010 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 2 Collector on 28th February 2011 and to follow his further instructions in the matter. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 7. Copy of this order be provided to the requesting parties to act upon. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp365.11