( 1 ) wp3876.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3876 OF 2008 M/s. Jalgaon Wine Agencies & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE,JJ. DATED : 21.02.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are dealers of wholesale liquor, have challenged the circular dated 06.12.2007, issued by respondent No.2 - Commissioner of State Excise, Mumbai. The challenge is on the ground that the circular is inconsistent with Section 144 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and/or issued without jurisdiction. In other words, it ( 2 ) wp3876.08 was submitted that the directions issued in the circular are beyond the statute, namely, Section 144 of the Act and that the Commissioner has no legal authority to issue such directions. We repeatedly asked Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners as to why and which of the directions incorporated in the circular dated 06.12.2007 is either inconsistent with the provisions of Section 144 of the Act or issued without legal authority/competence. He could not demonstrate either from the averments in the writ petition or on the basis of the circular itself. Mr. Patil made feeble attempt by submitting that this circular puts unreasonable restriction on the wholesale dealers in selling liquor even to the defaulter retailers. He then submitted that every citizen has liberty to sell goods or decline to sell the goods unless law imposes duty on him to sell the goods. He submitted that the liquor is not an essential commodity and considering past conduct of the retailers, the wholesalers have discretion to decline transaction with the retailers. 2. We have perused the circular so also the writ petition. In our opinion, the circular does not put any ( 3 ) wp3876.08 restriction on the wholesalers to sell liquor to the retailers, who are in arrears. The circular, on the contrary provides that the wholesalers can refused to sell liquor to the retailers if they are in arrears of their dues. This circular seems to have been issued in view of the grievance made by the retailers that many times the wholesalers do not sell liquor to the retailers even when they are willing to pay purchases in cash/D.D. The circular clearly states that the wholesalers cannot make a cartel and act against the retailers though they are at liberty to refuse to sell to the retailers, if they are defaulters. In the writ petition the petitioners have not stated as to why they are challenging the circular and/or which of the directions in the circular is hurting them and that it has been issued without authority of law. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. [R.M. BORDE,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.] snk/2011/FEB11/wp3876.08