1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5079 OF 2009. Maniklal Ramprasad Jaiswal and another -: versus :- The State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 20, 2010. 1. Heard Shri Z.A. Haq with Shri S.J. Kadu, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri A. Parchure with Shri Mohta, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Shri R.M. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7. 2. Contention of petitioner is, after huge delay and though shop was continuously in the name of petitioners, sisters i.e. respondent nos. 4,6,7 and 8 have raised frivolous objection contending that they are legal heirs of original licencee namely Ramprasad Jaiswal and after his death they are entitled to have their names included in the CL-III licence. 3. Ramprasad Jaiswal expired on 04.04.1989 and petitioners claim that he executed a Will and gave licence to petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 was accordingly running the shop after licence came to be transferred in his name on 05.12.1989. On 29.12.1999 he also admitted petitioner no.2 [his wife] as partner. No objection was raised by the sisters 2 on any of these occasions and only to harass the petitioners after several years i.e. on 12.01.2006 a vague objection has been raised. 4. The respective counsel for respondents point out that no objection to transfer licence in the exclusive name of petitioner no.1 was ever raised and being legal heirs of deceased Ramprasad Jaiswal, they are entitled to share in the said business. They contend that share has not been given to them and has not been also denied to them. 5. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the papers. Collector has on 24.07.2006 found that the licence is continued in the name of petitioners was valid and no case was made out by sisters. The sisters have approached Commissioner in Appeal under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act and thereafter in revision before the Hon'ble Minister. The Minister, after recording all facts has found that the contentions raised by the sisters need verification. The Hon'ble Minister also noticed that if there is any dispute between the legal heirs, licence is required to be suspended, but in present matter he did not suspend the licence and remanded the matter back to Collector to verify the factual situation. 6. The order passed under Section 138 of the Act, is being assailed by the petitioners, contending that when sisters have already given no objection and have not raised any contentions in relation to the said licence from 1990 till 2006, the impugned order is unsustainable. Reliance is being placed on some records to show that at the relevant time exercise of verification was undertaken by the department 3 through inspectors. Perusal of those papers show that the inspector has stated that he has recorded statement of sisters and the sisters also have then given their no objection. 7. Before this Court along with the rejoinder, petitioners have filed two affidavits, those are of sisters i.e. respondent no.6 and respondent no.8 respectively. The respective counsel for those respondents are disputing those affidavits. By said affidavits those sisters have allegedly accepted the contentions and stand of petitioners in the matter. 8. In view of the arguments above, it is apparent that facts need assertion and as the Hon'ble Minister has not suspended the liquor licence, petitioners are continuing with the business. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter in writ jurisdiction. However, considering the fact that the objection has been raised after 16 years, if the Collector passes order, adverse to the interest of petitioners the same shall not be implemented for a period of one month so as to enable the petitioners to challenge that order further. 9. The impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Minister in March, 2009 and communicated to the parties vide communication dated 21.05.2009 is modified only to that extent. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.