1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6526 OF 2007. PETITION NO.6526 OF 2007. PETITION NO.6526 OF 2007. Shri Nakul Undrya Patil : Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr.D.N.Sawant for the petitioner. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General a/w Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.B.MHASE & : S.B.MHASE & : S.B.MHASE & S.S.SHINDE, S.S.SHINDE, S.S.SHINDE, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED DATED DATED : APRIL 02, 2008. : APRIL 02, 2008. : APRIL 02, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both the sides. The petitioner was possessed of CL-III licence which was in force till 31st March 1974. Thereafter it was not renewed by the petitioner. The Government has 2 taken a policy decision to re-validate the expired licences. However, as per the said policy decision an application for re-validation was required to be filed by 31st May 1986. But the petitioner did not file any such application before 31st May 1986. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed such an application on 1st April 2000 seeking re-validation of his licence which was granted to him in the year 1973 and, since the petitioner had filed his application for re-validation of his licence beyond the date, the same was rejected by the Collector. The Petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner which was also rejected. Then a Revision Application was preferred by the Petitioner. The same was also rejected. 2. After rejection of revision by the State Government, it appears that, the petitioner filed a review application before the Minister (State Excise). The Ministered has recorded the contention of the petitioner that that the petitioner had filed an application for re-validation of his licence in the year 1984 and taking into consideration of that aspect, the Minister passed an order in favour of the 3 petitioner. 3. The learned Associate Advocate General makes a specific statement that there is no application ever preferred by the petitioner in the year 1984 and such application is not in the file of Government. Therefore, this Court has specifically asked the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to produce the application made by the petitioner in the year 1984. But the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his inability to produce such application. However, he submitted that such an application was made to the Minister. Ultimately, the fact remains that there is no application on the file of the Government except the submissions recorded by the Minister in the review application. After the order was passed by the Minister in review application and when the question of its implementation arose, the Department had scrutinised the said order and found that, the Government had no review application on its record. Ultimately a file was placed before Chief Minister and the Chief Minister accepted the proposal of the Department that the Minister has no review powers and a decision given in the 4 Revision Application by the State Government could not be reviewed by the then Minister and thus, as the proposal of the Department not to review the decision was accepted by all the concerned including the Chief Minister, the Government has not implemented the order passed by the then Minister. 3. Taking into consideration the submissions made at the Bar and decision of the Government not to implement the order passed by the then Minister, We find that there are no review powers to the Minister and the Minister could not have passed the order in the review application favouring the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, without any merit. Hence the same is rejected summarily. [S.B.MHASE, [S.B.MHASE, [S.B.MHASE, J] J] J] [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, J] J] J]