1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 872 OF 2011 (Smt. Parinita w/o Parmanand Jaiswal vs. The Superintendent, State Excise, Yavatmal & Anr.) 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 & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 29, 2011. Heard Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional GP for the respondents. The petitioner intended to transfer his existing CL-III licence shop to other premises and on 28.04.2010, the Superintendent – Respondent No. 1 has called upon the petitioner to furnish proper certificate showing that proposed premises can be commercially exploited. The petitioner contends that there is no such requirement either in Bombay Prohibition Act, 1958 or Rules framed thereunder and attention is invited to the circular dated 06.05.2005 issued by the Commissioner, State Excise to contend that it only contemplates that such structure should be authorized and a certificate to that effect from local authority should be furnished. He contends that the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat is accordingly furnished and the construction is also 2 authorized. The petitioner, because of the knowledge that a certificate showing authorization to use those premises commercially was required, has approached the Sub- Divisional Officer i.e. Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 rejected that request. The petitioner then challenged that order in appeal before the Collector under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the matter has been remanded back. He requests the Court to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer to consider the matter after remand in time bound period. He further states that insistence on such certificate and commercial user in communication dated 28.04.2010 by Respondent No. 1 is contrary to law and hence Respondent No. 1 should also be directed to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter take appropriate decision. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional GP states that insofar as proceedings before Sub-Divisional Officer are concerned, same can be expedited and the respondents have no objection. However, the commercial user of premises in residential area needs to be legally permissible and hence communication dated 28.04.2010 by Respondent No. 1 is legal and valid. The division of areas into residential, non residential or then user of a structure for commercial purpose are matters not regulated by Bombay Prohibition Act or Rules framed thereunder. The arguments that there is no such requirement in said law 3 is, therefore, irrelevant. If such argument is accepted, it would mean that in premises where commercial user is not otherwise permissible under relevant DCR, the petitioner can be permitted to start CL-III Shop. We, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the communication dated 28.04.2010. Hence with directions to Respondent No. 2 to expeditiously consider the pending application of the petitioner and decide the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from today, we dispose of the petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the respondents. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.