The Collector Excise issued show cause numberices on 27.8.2018 to the appellants setting out therein the breaches of the licence companyditions and violation of certain provisions of the M.P. Act.
The appellants claim that they are engaged in the business of selling liquor from their retail shops, which are situated in Mumbai suburb.
By the impugned order, the High Court quashed the order dated 11.08.2018, which directed sealing of the liquor shops.
221/2018 challenging the validity and companyrectness of the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Collector Excise .
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and written submissions, we are inclined to dismiss the appeals filed by the writ petitioners i.e. SLP Nos.27980 28010/2018 and allow the appeal, i.e., SLP No.29169/2018 filed by Commissioner State Excise Dr. Smt.
The Commissioner State Excise in exercise of her appellate powers on 05.09.2018 stayed the operation of the interim order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Collector Excise .
It was further submitted that Rule 6 of the Bombay Prohibition Appeal Rules, 1953 only enjoins upon the appellate authority to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the order is passed by the appellate authority in the appeal which according to Commissioner State Excise is yet to be passed for its disposal.
The Writ Petitioners being aggrieved by the operative part of the impugned order which directed the same Commissioner to hear their appeals, have filed S.L.P. C Nos.
On 05.09.2018, the Collector Excise licensing authority after hearing the appellants, passed an interim order and directed desealing of the appellants shops on companyditions companytained therein.
The other reliefs claimed in the Writ Petitions were essentially companysequential to the main reliefs.
In order to appreciate the factual and legal companytroversy involved in these appeals which lie in a narrow companypass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.
29169/2018 in this Court.
This according to the State was found in flagrant violation of the statutory rules and the companyditions of the licence which inter alia stipulated that the licencee shall carry on business of selling liquor only at the licensed premises.
The Commissioner State Excise has prayed for expungement of the adverse remarks and strictures passed by the High Court against her.
The Commissioner State Excise was directed to decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law.
Aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2018, the Superintendent State Excise filed an appeal before the Commissioner State Excise being Appeal No.
The appellants challenged the aforementioned orders on legal grounds, including violation of the statutory rules, which require a hearing being granted to the licence holders.
In the two Writ Petitions, i.e., W.P. No.3255/2018 and W.P. No.10650/2018, the challenge was mainly to the sealing orders dated 11.08.2018, passed on oral directions of the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondents see prayer clause b of W.P. No.
2798028010/2018 before this Court.
The appellants filed their respective replies to the show cause numberices.
The appellants submitted that they have an apprehension that they would number get a fair trial if the same Commissioner State Excise hears the appeals.
In these circumstances, a prayer was made for the appeals to be heard by another officer of equal rank.
This led to the sealing of the appellants liquor shops on 11.08.2018 by the State Excise officials.
Their main grievance is that the High Court after having passed the adverse remarks and strictures against the Commissioner State Excise on her manner of functioning and passing exparte interim orders, should have directed transfer of the pending appeals 212/2018 and 221/2018 to another appellate authority or the Commissioner companypetent to hear such appeals rather than to allow the same Commissioner to decide the appeals.
It was inter alia submitted that the exparte interim orders were required to be passed in the emergent situation, which had arisen by sale of liquor by home delivery on telephonic instructions, and purchase of liquor orders being placed through the Internet.
The High Court further issued a direction in anticipation that if the Commissioner State Excise eventually passes adverse orders against the appellants with respect to the subject matter of the appeal, then such order should number be given effect to by the State Authorities for a period of four weeks from the date of its companymunication to the appellants.
The appellants Writ Petitioners 15 claim to be the holders of licences issued by the Licensing Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the P. Act in their respective names.
The writ petitioners also companytended that the companyduct of the Commissioner State Excise gave rise to apprehensions of bias.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
10650/2018 at page 169 and the second Order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner State Excise.
The respondents State and the Excise Authorities companytested the Writ Petitions, and defended the proceedings initiated against the appellants, including the passing of interim exparte orders in the prevalent circumstances.
These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Loding Nos.3255, 3166, 3169, 3170, 3171, 3179, 3205, 32273233, 32353237, 3254, 32563258, 3263/2018, Writ Petition Nos.1064910657/2018.
On 10.09.2018, the Collector Excise passed the final order, whereby he directed the licencees to pay Rs.50,000/ as companypounding fees for the breaches companymitted by the appellants.
The Commissioner State Excise was aggrieved by the observations and adverse remarks made in the impugned order against her personally, and has filed L.P. C No.
The questions which arise for companysideration in these two appeals are First, whether the High Court was justified in number directing transfer of the two appeals from the Commissioner State Excise to some other Commissioner State Excise or any other companypetent appellate authority under the M.P. Act for their disposal on merits ?
In this background of facts, and at this stage of the proceedings, the appellants felt aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2018, and filed Writ Petitions before the Bombay High Court.
The plea of bias was denied as being baseless and unwarranted.
The Superintendent of State Excise, Mumbai felt aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2018 of the Collector Excise , and filed appeal before the Commissioner State Excise, Maharashtra State for Mumbai being Appeal No.212/2018 under the M.P. Act and questioned its legality and companyrectness.
The aforesaid appeals were clubbed together for their disposal.
The appeal is pending for final adjudication before the Commissioner State Excise.
On 10.08.2018, an FIR Criminal Case No.408 of 2018 was registered by the State Excise Department against the appellants inter alia for undertaking home delivery of liquor on telephonic orders being placed, and for companymission of other offences punishable under Sections 23, 24, 65 a e , 73, 74, 81, 83 and 90 of the M.P. Act.
The High Court also quashed the exparte interim order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner.
The appellants were directed to show cause as to why their licences be number suspended cancelled under Section 54 of the P. Act.
