1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4029 OF 2009 Yallavabai w/o Laxman Bodge, Age : 45 years, Occu. Business, R/o Ring Road, Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The District Collector, Latur, Dist. Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate with Mr A.N. Nagargoje for the petitioner; Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] 2 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Nagargoje on behalf of the petitioner and Shri V.B. Ghatge, learned A.G.P. for respondents. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to accord permission to the petitioner for running the country liquor shop in Municipal House No.R-9-273/8, situated at Ring Road, Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Latur. The petitioner also prays for quashing and setting aside order dated 30.6.2008 passed by respondent no.1. Shri Dixit, learned Senior Counsel at the outset very fairly stated that the petitioner does not press for the relief sought for in prayer clause (B) for the present. 4. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus :- The petitioner claims to have been issued with a license of CL-III some time in the year 1973 and since then the petitioner has been running her country liquor shop. The premises of one Shri Vishnudas Narayanrao Limkar, situated at Ring Road, Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Latur was taken on rent by the petitioner for 3 the aforesaid purpose. The Municipal Council, Latur by its communication dated 30.11.2004 granted no objection to the petitioner. Thus, thereafter the petitioner commenced the business in the said premises. According to the petitioner, apart from the liquor shop of the petitioner, there are other country liquor shops and permit rooms situated near the shop of the petitioner and some unruly elements in the society approached the petitioner and demanded certain amount and threatened the petitioner that in the event the aforesaid amount was not paid, steps would be taken for closing the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner refused to fulfill the aforesaid demand for payment of the money and, therefore, various complaints came to be made against the petitioner. Ultimately the license of the petitioner came to be suspended by an order dated 30.6.2008. Certain deficiencies were noticed in respect of the premises and according to the petitioner the petitioner has complied with whatever deficiencies which were noticed and were brought to the notice of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly deposited an amount of Rs. 1,42,025/- on 30.3.2009 towards the revival/grant of license to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, despite deposit of the aforesaid amount, no steps have been taken by the respondents for revival of the earlier license or for issuance of a fresh license. 5. Shri Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner has complied and has rectified whatever deficiencies which 4 were noticed by the respondents while suspending the liquor license of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further states that petitioner would submit an application to respondents within two weeks from today pointing out the rectification of the various defects which were noticed and also for revival of the license and/or revocation of the order dated 30.6.2008. We permit the petitioner to submit an application for the aforesaid reliefs within two weeks from today and further direct the respondents to decide the said application in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of the aforesaid application and to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 6. Petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court be provided to the learned A.G.P. to act upon. [ A.V. POTDAR, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] amj/wp4029.09 5