(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2524 OF 2011 Vilas s/o. Dongarlal Jaiswal, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. 2, Jaynagar, Sagar Park, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Fort, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Jalgaon, State Excise Department, District : Jalgaon. 3. The Superintendent, State Excise Department, Jalgaon. 4. Shri Mangalsing s/o. Ankush Patil, Age : Major, Occupation : Business. 5. Shri Pradipsing s/o. Ankush Patil, Age : Major, Occupation : Business. 6. Shri Rameshkumar s/o. Rameshwar Jaiswal, Age : Major, Occupation : Business. (2) Respondent Nos.4 to 6, R/o. C/o. Deshi Madya Kirkol Vikri Dukan, CL-3/50 License, Near S.T. Stand, Erandol, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. N.V. Gaware, for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, for respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. Adv. Mr. Gaware has strenuously tried to point out to this court, the documents showing illegal participation of unauthorized persons in conducting CL-III shop of respondent no.6. He points out that partnerships are entered into, either registered or not registered and in any case, are not brought to the notice of Excise Department so as to avoid payment of charges. (3) According to him, finding given by the authority, that the present petitioner has no locus, is misconceived. He is placing reliance upon judgment of Hon. Apex Court reported at (2005) 3 SCC 683, in the case of Sai Chalchitra Vs. Commissioner, Meerut Mandal & others. He contends that when petitioner is doing his business in accordance with law, illegal and unauthorized business of respondent no.6 with the help of respondent nos.4 and 5 is nothing but unhealthy competition and hence the authorities out to have interfered in the matter. He also points out that similar grievance made by the petitioner in relation to earlier period is admitted by this court and Writ Petition is placed for final hearing. 3. Learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, for respondent nos.1 to 3, is supporting the impugned order. According to him, several disputed questions arise and the same cannot be resolved in this jurisdiction. 4. When similar grievance is admitted by this court, it is clear that grievance for subsequent period need not be admitted. The relief claimed by the petitioner can be agitated in pending petition only. 5. However, after perusing documents shown and other (4) material, it is clear that petitioner is not getting any assistance from respondent no.6 or then respondent nos. 4 and 5. The authorities also are not in a position to support him as necessary documents are not registered with them. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, raises basically all questions of fact only. Those facts can be brought on record by examining witnesses and by cross examining respondents including the authorities. The finding that the petitioner has no locus cannot be sustained. When the petitioner is running his shop in accordance with law and is facing competition from business which is being run in violation of provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act and Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1953, the petitioner can always make a grievance and seek its redressal. But that redressal depends upon answer to disputed questions of fact. 6. Hence, with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate civil proceedings before competent Civil Court, present petition is disposed of. No costs. If such civil proceedings are filed, the concerned court shall attempt to decide the same at the earliest. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE bgp/wp2524