Back
Court Judgment
Bombay High Court
13 Dec 2018
Sou. Kamlabai Kallappa Kumasage v. The Collector, Sangli
| Parties | Sou. Kamlabai Kallappa Kumasage v. The Collector, Sangli and others |
| Case Number | WP 12477 OF 2018 |
| Bench | Principal Seat |
| Tags | licence-cancellation foreign-liquor statutory-remedy section-56 section-137 procedural-remedy |
Summary & Ratio Decidendi
Writ petition challenging cancellation of FL-III liquor licence under BPA Section 56(1)(b) withdrawn with liberty to file appeal. Court found the order appealable under Section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, directing petitioner to pursue appropriate statutory remedy within prescribed time.
Ratio: When a licence cancellation order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is appealable under Section 137 of the Act, a writ petition under Article 227 is not the appropriate remedy. The petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal procedure. The court granted withdrawal with liberty to file the proper appeal, excluding time spent in the writ petition from limitation consideration.
Rules & Sections Cited (2)
Full Text
Sou. Kamlabai Kallappa Kumasage Thru ... vs The Collector, Sangli And Ors on 13 December, 2018 Author: R. G. Ketkar Bench: R. G. Ketkar WP12477_18.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12477 OF 2018 Kamlabai Kallappa Kumasage through her POA Appaso @ Kumar Kallappa Kumasage ... Petitioner Vs. The Collector, Sangli and others ... Respondents Mr. Priyal G. Sarda for Petitioner. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2018 P.C. : Heard Mr. Sarda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patil, learned AGP for the respondents at length. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the Collector, Sangli. By that order, Collector, Sangli in exercise of powers under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act (for short 'Act') has permanently cancelled FL-III licence No.S-92 issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Patil raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Petition on the ground that the impugned order is appealable under Section 137 of the Act. 4. In view thereof, on instructions, Mr. Sarda seeks permission to withdraw this Petition with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings within two weeks from today, excepting the Petition. He further submits that Petition is instituted on 22.10.2018 in this Court. He, therefore, submitted that as the petitioner was prosecuting this Petition bonafide in 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 06:48:37 ::: WP12477_18.doc this Court, the time spent by the petitioner from 22.10.2018 till date may be excluded while considering the issue of limitation. 5. In view thereof, on the motion made by Mr. Sarda, Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, except filing of the Petition. If appropriate proceedings are filed within two weeks from today, the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting this Petition bonafide in this Court from 22.10.2018 till date shall be excluded while considering the issue of limitation. It is made clear that I have not examined merits of the case. All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. Order accordingly. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 06:48:37 :::