1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2647 OF 2009 1) Sangamner Bhag Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Amrut Nagar, Ghulewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Through its Distillery Incharge, Shivaji Haribhau Jondhale, R/o-Amrut Nagar, Ghulewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, 2) Madhukar Balaji Gunjal, R/o-Khandgaon, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai-400 023. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.R.N. Dhorde Advocate i/b. Mr. V.R. Dhorde Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The reliefs claimed in this Petition are as follows: "B) Quash and set aside the letter/order dated 05.03.2008 and 31.05.2008 issued by the Respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra, Prohibition and Excise Department, rejecting the applications of the petitioners for grant of CL-I and PLL licences and for that purpose issue necessary orders. "C) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the applications dated 24.09.2002 3 of the petitioners for grant of CL-I and PLL Licences to the petitioner sugar factory and for that purpose issue necessary orders." 3. In view of the statement made by the Respondents on affidavit of Divisional Deputy Commissioner of State Excise, nothing survives for consideration in this Petition in as much as it is stated that the Scheme under which the Petitioner had applied for grant of CL-I and PLL licences has been scraped and deposits given by the respective applicants were refunded. In Paragraph 18 of the affidavit, it is stated that: "at present there is no policy to grant country liquor and foreign liquor licence from rectified spirit manufactured from molasses. However, the Petitioners are free to apply for country and foreign liquor licence from non molasses based rectified spirit." 4 4. In view of this statement made on affidavit, reliefs as claimed in this Petition cannot be granted. Our attention is invited to order passed by the Division Bench of our High Court dated 16th March, 2004 in Writ Petition Lodging No.692 of 2004, which reads thus: "1. Mr. Sawant, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents states that pursuant to the scheme declared by the State Govt. regarding grant of CL-I and PLL Licences, more than 850 applications were received by the State Govt. The State Govt. has, however, decided to scrap the said scheme and there is no intention to grant the licences under the said scheme. In view of this statement of Mr. Sawant, no orders are necessary on this Petition. 2. It is needless to say that 5 as and when the Govt. decides to grant such licences the Govt. will follow the prescribed mode i.e. auction or tenders as prescribed by law. Petition stands disposed of." 5. The position stated on affidavit before us has been noticed even in this order. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that subsequent to passing of this order, the State has filed Notice of Motion No.418 of 2004 before the Principal Bench praying for modification of the order dated 16th March, 2004, especially Paragraph 2 thereof to include the mode of granting licences by inviting applications by public notice. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, emphasized on last sentence of Paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion wherein it is mentioned that it has been the practice of the State Government to grant licenses by considering individual applications or as in the instant case, by giving a public notice in the newspapers. It is 6 further stated that, however, it is not practicable to grant licenses for manufacture of liquor by auction or tender. Whether this plea taken by the State is inconsistent with the contents of the order dated 16th March, 2004 or otherwise, is a matter which will be considered in the Notice of Motion No.418 of 2004, if the same is still pending. 6. Grievance is made before us that taking advantage of the pendency of the above referred Notice of Motion, the State Government is allowing the persons in whose favour license has already been granted to continue with the same arrangement without inviting fresh applications. That grievance will have to be addressed in the Notice of Motion. It will be open to the Petitioners to resort to such proceedings as may be advised for seeking appropriate directions of the Court in the pending Notice of Motion or the disposed of Writ Petition Lodging No.692 of 2004, as may be advised. 7 7. Mr. Dhorde had contended that if the order dated 16th March, 2004 is to be recalled, the scheme would be revived, in which case it will be open to the Petitioner to pursue the present Petition. This submission is ill-advised. The Notice of Motion taken out by the State of Maharashtra is only for modification of that order, that too, Paragraph 2, which position in fact, has been restated in the affidavit filed in the present Petition. 8. Suffice it to observe that no relief as prayed in this Petition can be granted by this Court. At this stage, counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioners, in that case, would withdraw the present Petition. Accordingly, Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Order accordingly. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/FEB10/wp2647.09