1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LOD.NO.983 OF 2008 Mandakini J. Melekar .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.D.B.Sawant for petitioner Mr.R.R.Bhosale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr.S.S.Kanetkar with Mr.G.S.Godbole for respondent No.4 Mr.S.S.Thakur for respondent No.5 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8th July 2008 P.C. . By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure J to the petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the Minister of State Excise of Maharashtra has, in his purported exercise of revisional powers, allowed a revision application preferred by respondent No.4 and reversed the 2 orders passed by the Collector, Mumbai dated 17th February 2007 and Commissioner of State Excise dated 26th July 2007. The Minister has directed by this order that the liquor licence in question should carry the name of all heirs and legal representatives of one Shantabai Melekar. This arrangement should be made because there is no agreement between the family members/legal representatives of the deceased Shantabai with regard to the insertion of the names in the license after the death of the deceased. Since the heirs could not reach an agreement with regard to the name of one of the heirs and which of them should be entered, the Minister was of the opinion that names of all family members/legal representatives should appear on the licence subject to their obtaining appropriate orders from competent civil court. 2. In the submission of the petitioner this order is vitiated as the Minister proceeds on the 3 basis that in the original licence, the name of Shantabai so also one Seva Dharma Palekar and Mandakini Melekar appear as partners. The Minister committed an error relying upon the contents of the partnership deed. The Minister proceeds to hold that after the death of Shantabai on 15th June 1995, the licence should not carry the name of Seva Dharma Palekar and Mandakini Melekar. This arrangement will have to be made because during her life time deceased Shantabai did not indicate as to whose name shall be inserted in the licence after her. Whatever may be the arrangement between Shantabai and other two ladies who are partners, yet, the Government circular dated 20th August 1996 would come into play and the licence should carry the names of all the heirs and legal representatives. Moreso, because after the death of Shantabai, the deed of partnership stands cancelled. Therefore, all heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Shantabai are entitled to claim licence. 4 3. After this petition was filed and notices were issued, reply affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4. 4. The matter was placed before me for admission. After the arguments were heard for some time, both sides agree that subject liquor licence being CL-III, Licence No.32 pertaining to Shop No.50 Raikar Chawl, Naigaon Mumbai 400 012 would carry only the name of petitioner No.1, Mandakini but out of the proceeds which are received from the country liquor licence, 25% shall be given to Mrs.Hemangi Shedge, respondent No.4 to this petition. This 25% amount/share will be handed over to her on the 20th of each month commencing from 20th July 2008 and on 20th of each succeeding month till the country liquor business is managed and is in operation, Petitioner No.2 and respondent No.5 relinquish their rights, title and interest insofar as 5 country liquor business is concerned and respondent No.4 would have no objection to the licence carrying only name of petitioner No.1, subject of course, to her share being paid as above regularly. 5. As far as other property of the deceased are concerned, merely because this arrangement is recorded does not mean that respondent No.4 has no right, title or interest therein and it would be open for respondent No.4 so also other heirs of the deceased to initiate such proceedings as are permissible in law to claim their respective shares in the property. All contentions of both sides are kept open. The order of the Minister and the other authority stands substituted with the above arrangement. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. It is also agreed between the parties that this arrangement will continue during the life time of petitioner No.1 and upon her demise, licence will be 6 transferred in the joint names of petitioner No. 2 and respondent Nos.4 and 5. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)