bsb 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. 6815 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6815 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6815 OF 2008 Laxmibai B. Salunkhe ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mrs.Veena Thadhani with Mr.Vishal B. Thadhani for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent No.1 rejecting her revision filed under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (in short, "the Act"). The revision has been rejected on the ground that there is no power to review its earlier order. 2. The petitioner’s husband Bhaskar Ramchandra Salunkhe obtained a CL-III licence for retail sale of country liquor and was carrying on the business in Taluka Karjat, Dist. Raigad. He was the sole proprietor and had employed one Bhimsen Dwarkaprasad Jindal. A Nokarnama was duly executed authorising Jindal to work 2 in his shop. It appears that, some time in 1982 the petitioner’s daughter was missing as a result of which the petitioner’s husband was too distraught to be able to effectively manage the business. Pursuant to that, Jindal was appointed to manage the business. He paid a fixed amount to the petitioner’s husband as rent for the premises. 3. Thereafter in 1985, Jindal did not furnish proper accounts to the petitioner’s husband and, therefore, he was dismissed from service. The Nokarnama was also cancelled. Jindal then filed a complaint to the Collector alongwith a forged partnership deed alleging that the petitioner’s husband had agreed to sell the CL-III licence to him by an agreement dated 14.12.1982. The consideration for this sale was Rs.15000/-. 4. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner’s husband on 8.10.1985 directing him to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled under Sections 54 and 56 of the Act. The petitioner’s husband replied to the show cause notice and explained that the licence had not been sold and that it was only because he had cancelled the Nokarnama in favour of his servant Jindal, that the latter had filed the false complaints. A personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner’s 3 advocate. An order was passed cancelling the CL-III licence on the ground that the petitioner’s husband had sold the licence to Jindal, contrary to the terms of the licence. An appeal was preferred under Section 137(2) of the Act to the Commissioner State Excise. This appeal was also rejected on 30.6.1986. A revision application was filed before the Tribunal by petitioner’s husband on 3.2.1987. This revision application met with the same fate on 27.1.1987. 5. A suit was filed by Jindal in the year 1990 being Suit No.1225 of 1990 against the petitioner’s husband. Jindal filed this suit for recovery of Rs.24,220/- on the ground that the plaintiff i.e. Jindal had been induced to purchase the CL-III licence by the petitioner’s husband who was aware that it was not transferrable. The suit was dismissed on 12.11.1990 and the Civil Judge, Jr.Divn., Pune has held that there was no inducement on the part of the petitioner’s husband and that he had not sold the licence to Jindal. 6. Several applications were made by the petitioner’s husband for restoring the licence to him after the suit was dismissed. However, no action was taken in the matter by the State Government. The petitioner’s husband expired on 26.4.1997. In 2004, the petitioner 4 approached the State Government to have the licence restored in view of the fact that civil suit had been dismissed. An application was accordingly made to the State Government to restore the CL-III licence to the petitioner in place of her late husband. No reply was received by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner once again approached the State Government in November, 2005. The respondent No.1 dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that a review of the order dated 27.1.1987 was not maintainable. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the suit was dismissed after the earlier revision application was rejected. There was thus change in the circumstances in which case it would be open for the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter. 8. In my view, this submission must be accepted. The respondent No.1 should have reconsidered the application of the petitioner in view of the fact that the civil suit has been dismissed after the revision application filed by her husband was dismissed by the order dated 27.1.1987. There is a change of circumstances since the Civil Judge, Jr. Divn. has found that there was no 5 agreement for sale of the CL-III licence to Jindal and therefore the ground on which the licence was revoked was not invalid. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.1 to reconsider the application of the petitioner for restoration of the CL- III licence in view of the dismissal of the R.C.S. No.1225 of 1990 on 12.11.1990. 8. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.