1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.592 OF 1991. Kundanlal Bhayyalal Jaiswal, Licensee CL.III No.62 Partur, since deceased through L.Rs. 1. Sharadabai W/o Kundanlal Jaiswal, Aged 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o Paradgaon, Tq. Ambad, Dist.Jalna. (Deleted as per Addl. Registrar's order dt.22.7.96.) 2. Madhuri Daughter of Kundanlal Jaiswal, Aged 20 years, R/o Paradgaon, Tq. Ambad, Dist.Jalna. (For herself and L.Rs. of deceased petitioner No.1 as per above order. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Maharashtra. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra State. Old Custom House, Bombay. 3. The Collector, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. ... Respondents. 2 ... Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Sr.Counsel instructed by Mr.A.H.Kasliwal, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 29.01.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the deceased petitioner challenged order dated 7.1.1991, rendered by learned Collector, whereby his license to run country liquor shop was revoked. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that CL.III license was granted in favour of deceased petitioner. There were complaints made by inhabitants of the area alleging that the liquor shop was situated in the proximity of a School and moreover, it caused nuisance to passers-by because consumption of liquor was being allowed by the deceased petitioner at the vending place and, therefore, various complaints of offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act were noticed. The Collector, noticed that the location of the 3 country liquor shop was in the proximity of the School and College and, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was detrimental to the interest of the students. He further came to the conclusion that the front portion of the shop was visible from the School premises which was situated after leaving the public road in the mid-way. The Collector revoked the license in order to ensure the law and order position. 3. The petitioner alleges that due procedure was not followed while cancelling the license. He further alleges that the liquor shop is not situated within 100 Meters. He further alleges that the liquor shop is not situated within 100 meters area of the School and the College. He submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 5. It is an admitted fact that alternate remedy of appeal is provided for under the Bombay 4 Prohibition Act, vide Section 137. The deceased petitioner availed the remedy of appeal. His appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. Needless to say, he has availed the parallel remedy. It appears that interim stay was granted in the present Writ Petition. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that the appeal may be pressed into service. Considering the fact situation, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy inasmuch as certain disputed questions of facts are involved in the petition and the same may be decided by the appellate authority. 6. In the result, the petition is disposed of with direction that the appeal preferred by deceased petitioner may be expeditiously heard and decided on its own merits within a period of six (6) months as far as possible. The interim relief granted by this Court be deemed as continued for the period of six (6) months or till the appeal is decided by the learned Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise whichever 5 is earlier. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp59291