1406wp1956.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1956 OF 2011 Nitin Bhaurao Tidke ..vs.. Hon’ble Minister (Mah.State), Excise Deptt. and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. V.G.Bhamburkar, Adv. for the petitioner. Smt.Tajwarkhan, AGP for resp.1 to 4. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 14th June, 2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 07/07/2010 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for State Excise, Government of Maharashtra, by which order the revision filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Plot No.32, Field Survey No.58, situated at mauza Malkapur. The petitioner claims to have purchased the said land from one Dr.Ashok Shankarrao Fokmare by registered sale-deed. The said property is admeasuring 285 sq. meters. The respondent no.6 herein is conducting a CL-III license on part of the said property. The petitioner applied to the Collector for cancellation of the said license on the ground that respondent no.6 has encroached upon his property. The said application of the petitioner came to be rejected by the Collector by his order dated 14/09/2005. 1406wp1956.11.odt 2 The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner, State Excise. The Commissioner State Excise by his order dated 25/11/2005 dismissed the said appeal. The Commissioner whilst dismissing the said appeal has inter alia held that the licence was granted to respondent no.6 in the year 1995, when the petitioner was not the owner of the land and the said licence was already in existence when the petitioner had purchased the land. The Commissioner further held that the petitioner is trying to use the auspices of the Excise authorities for getting the respondent no.6 evicted by seeking the cancellation of his licence. The Commissioner was of the view that it would be proper for the petitioner to take a recourse to civil proceedings to get the respondent evicted from his land by filing proceedings before the competent civil court. In my view, though it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is only seeking the cancellation of his licence and not eviction, the said relief, as held by the authorities below, is a ruse adopted by the petitioner to seek the eviction of respondent no.6 by having recourse to the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act and the Rules thereunder. As held by the authorities, the petitioner would be entitled to seek eviction of the respondent no.6 by filing appropriate civil proceedings. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the authorities below do not warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Chute