( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6363 OF 2008 1. Smt. Rajnarsubai Muttyamreddi Muttalwad Since deceased, by L.Rs. 1A. Laxmibai w/o Shriniwas Reddy, R/o Shastri Nagar, Nirmal, District Adilabad (A.P.) 1B. Lalitabai d/o Muttyamreddy, R/o Kini, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. 2. Tirupatreddy Muttyamreddy Muttalwad R/o Freedom Fighters Colony, Near Shobha Nagar, Nanded. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, State Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Old Custom House, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Nanded. 4. Rameshreddi s/o Muttyamreddi Muttalwad, R/o 118, Ganeshnagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.R. Mantri, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for respondent No. 4. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6969 OF 2008 Shri Rameshreddy Muttyamreddy Muttalwad, R/o Kini, Taluka ( 2 ) Bhokar, District Nanded. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, Home (Transport) Department, Mantralaya. 2. The Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Old Custom House, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Nanded. 4. Smt. Rajanarsubai Muttamreddy Muttalwad Since deceased, by L.Rs. 4A. Laxmibai w/o Shrinivas Reddy, R/o Shastri Nagar, Nirmal, District Adilabad (A.P.) 4B. Lalitabai d/o Muttamreddy Muttalwad, R/o Kini, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. 5. Tirupat Reddy Muttamreddy Muttalwad, R/o Freedom Fighters Colony, Near Shobha Nagar, Nanded. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R.R. Mantri, advocate for respondents No. 4A & 4B. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 4th February, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. These petitions are being decided together in as much as they arise out of same order rendered by the ( 3 ) Hon’ble Minister for State Excise, Maharashtra, in revision application No. 1107/RA 74/EAXC-3 on 02-09-2008. 2. Indisputably, Muttyam Reddy was holder of CL- III licence. He was running a country liquor vending shop at village Kini under Bhokar Tahsil. He was having two sons and a daughter. In his lifetime, name of one of the sons i.e. Petitioner Ramesh, who has filed writ petition No. 6969/2008, was recorded as holder of the licence. He had alleged that Muttyam Reddy had given application for transfer of the licence in his name. The Collector,Nanded directed transfer of the licence in name of Ramesh Reddy, one of the sons, by order dated 03-01-2006. Simultaneously, the name of Muttyam Reddy was deleted from the licence after recovery of necessary fees. There is no dispute about the fact that during his lifetime, Muttyam Reddy challenged the transfer of licence in name of his son – Ramesh Reddy by filing an appeal (appeal No. 232/2006) before the Commissioner of State Excise, Mumbai. There is also no dispute about the fact that Muttyam Reddy died on 03-10-2006, leaving ( 4 ) behind him two daughters and two sons and widow (Rajnarsubai). It was the case of Muttyam Reddy that Ramesh Reddy had obtained transfer of the licence by playing fraud and after preparing fabricated document regarding his consent. The Commissioner of State Excise, by order dated 06-11-2007, partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh enquiry and orders in the matter. The Commissioner held that the licence could not have been transferred in name of the only son without no objection from other heirs of deceased Muttyam Reddy. 3. Feeing aggrieved, Ramesh Reddy preferred revision application. The Hon’ble Minister, by passing the impugned order, partly allowed the revision application, holding that instead of suspending the licence till obtaining the succession certificate from the competent Court, it would be appropriate to transfer the licence in name of Ramesh Reddy and his mother, by name Rajanarsubai. This order is challenged by petitioners Rajanarsubai and another son of deceased Muttyam Reddy. In the meanwhile, Rajnarsubai also died ( 5 ) during pendency of the petition (W.P. No. 6363/2008). Her two daughters have been substituted as her legal representatives by order dated 04-09-2009. They challenge the order rendered by the Hon’ble Minister on the ground that such transfer of the licence only in name of Ramesh Reddy was totally illegal, against the relevant rules and improper, whereas Ramesh Reddy challenges the same order on the ground that name of Rajanarsubai could not have been shown in licence as a transferee thereof, vide writ petition No. 6969 of 2008. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 5. The impugned order discloses that the Hon’ble Minister has not ascribed valid reasons to transfer the CL-III licence in favour of petitioner Ramesh Reddy and his mother – Rajanarsubai, nor their shares were specified. Obviously, in absence of any tangible reason for effecting such kind of transfer in the names of petitioner – Ramesh Reddy and his mother – Rajanarsubai, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order. The ( 6 ) learned Commissioner of State Excise held that the transfer policy was reflected in Government Circular No. BPA.1089/PRO-2 Home Department, Mantralaya, dated 06-07-1989 which indicated that the transfer of licence could be effected in name of an heir or heirs of the licensee only after his death, otherwise not. 6. Mr. Hon strenuously argued that Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 empowers the Collector to transfer the licence from one name to another and, therefore, transfer of the licence in name of petitioner Ramesh Reddy could not be regarded as invalid. The question is not whether the Collector had powers to effect such transfer. The question is whether the application submitted by deceased Muttyam Reddy was voluntary and could be acted upon. The Collector was required to inquire into the matter before passing the order of transfer in name of Ramesh Reddy. As stated earlier, in his lifetime, Muttyam Reddy had challenged the said order of Collector. He had also filed a complaint application in the Collectorate, Nanded. So also, petitioners – Rajnarsubai and another had also ( 7 ) filed objections. Needless to say, there was dispute regarding voluntary transfer of the licence by Muttyam Reddy in favour of petitioner Ramesh Reddy. 7. It is important to notice that the licence stood in the name of deceased Muttyam Reddy alone and he was conducting the business of country liquor vending till before the alleged transfer of the licence in name of petitioner Ramesh Reddy. The Hon’ble Minister did not give any finding on the disputed question viz. whether the transfer application was voluntarily submitted by Muttyam Reddy in his lifetime and, therefore, the Collector was right in effecting the transfer of CL-III licence in his name. Nor there is any reason given by the Hon’ble Minister as to why the order of the learned Commissioner was found improper and illegal. The learned Commissioner had considered three Government circulars referred in his order dated 06-11-2007. The Hon’ble Minister did not appreciate purport and tenor of the said circulars, the Government policy regarding grant of CL-III licence, transfer thereof and the relevant rules. Thus, it will have to be ( 8 ) said that the impugned order is bereft of tangible reasons and particularly, in the context of transfer of the licence in joint names of petitioner Ramesh Reddy and deceased Rajnarsubai. In fact, if the Hon’ble Minister had come to the conclusion that the transfer effected by the Collector in name of petitioner – Ramesh Reddy was legal and proper, then there was no reason to introduce name of deceased Rajnarsubai as a joint holder of the licence. Had he reached a conclusion that the order of the Commissioner of State Excise was sustainable, then there was no reason for him to pass the order regarding continuation of the licence in joint names, particularly when the Government circulars indicated that such licence could not be transferred in name of only one of the heirs. The impugned order does not make out head or tale and has no legal foundation. 8. Under the circumstances, the impugned order rendered by the Hon’ble Minister is unsustainable. Hence, both the petitions are partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The revision petition filed by petitioner Ramesh Reddy is restored to its original ( 9 ) position. The Hon’ble Minister should hear the parties and decide the revision petition afresh on its own merits, having regard to the policies of the Government and the relevant Government circulars and the Rules. In the meanwhile, the petitioners, who are legal representatives of deceased Rajnarsubai and Muttyam Reddy may seek interim relief by filing appropriate application before the Hon’ble Minister for the purpose of suspension of the licence or revoking the suspension, as the case may be. The Hon’ble Minister is requested to expedite the final hearing of the revision petition and to dispose it within period of six months. The parties are directed to appear before the Hon’ble Minister on 4th March, 2010. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp6363-6969.08