Sarojini Ishwarlal Jaiswal, Thr. Her ... vs The Commissioner Of State Excise, ... on 25 August, 2026

 CNR No : HCBM040103012021
 2026:BHC-NAG:11248

 wp 1972-2021.odt
 1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

 WRIT PETITION NO.1972 OF 2021

 1. Smt. Sarojini Ishwarlal Jaiswal,
 C.L. III License No.71/96-97, Jirapure
 Nagar, Darwha, District Yavatmal,
 through her power of attorney Satish s/o
 Shivachanlal Jaiswal, Aged about 41
 years, Occ. Business, R/o Darwha,
 District Yavatmal.
 ... PETITIONER

 VERSUS

 1. The Commissioner of State Excise,
 Maharashtra State, Fort, Mumbai
 400023.

 2. The Collector, Yavatmal,
 (State Exercise) cum Superintendent
 of State Excise, Yavatmal

 3. Shri Gajanan Mahadeorao Jirapure
 Aged about Major, Occ. Nil,
 Resident of Darwha, Tal. Darwha,
 District Yavatmal.
 ... RESPONDENTS
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for petitioner
 Shri S.C. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State
 Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent No.3
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
 DATED : 25.08.2026

Uploaded on - 28/08/2026 Downloaded on - 01/11/2026 19:51:12
 wp 1972-2021.odt
 2

 ORAL JUDGMENT

 1. Heard.

 2. In the present petition, challenge is to the order

 passed by learned Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra

 State, Mumbai, dated 26.03.2021, whereby he has dismissed the

 appeal filed by petitioner against the order of the Collector.

 3. It is the submission of the present petitioner that he

 has been allotted C.L.-III Licence No.71/1996-97 of Mouja

 Darwha, District Yavatmal and same was time to time renewed

 by him. It is claimed that on 24.09.2014, he was permitted to

 transfer licence from Pusad to Darwha. After that on 01.06.2015

 complaint was lodged by respondent No.3, alleging that, liquor

 shop of petitioner is having permission to have Entry gate from

 East side but he has put entry gate from Western side. Petitioner

 pointed out to the Collector that the entrance was same as it

 shown in sanction map and produced the relevant documents.

 However, learned Collector by his order dated 28.04.2016

 cancelled the C.L. III licence of petitioner for breach of condition

Uploaded on - 28/08/2026 Downloaded on - 01/11/2026 19:51:12
 wp 1972-2021.odt
 3

 of licence.

 4. The petitioner, against the order of Collector,

 Yavatmal preferred statutory appeal on substantial grounds

 before the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State,

 Mumbai. The Commissioner of State Excise, has passed the

 following final order in the present matter:

 "The appeal is allowed only if the distance is more than
 200 mtrs. irrespective of the position of door. Else the
 impugned order is upheld."

 The perusal of this order do not show that same is based

 upon any concrete findings recorded in the impugned order. The

 findings which are recorded by the Commissioner of State Excise

 in the impugned order is that he was not agreed with the

 contention of the respondent that as per Rule 24 of the

 Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, the distance is to be

 measured as ordinarily a pedestrian reaches the liquor shop.

 Then he recorded the said provision for distance between two

 shops to be 200 mtrs. as provided under Rule 24(5) of the

 Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, and the distance restrictions

 from education and religious institution is provided under Rule

Uploaded on - 28/08/2026 Downloaded on - 01/11/2026 19:51:12
 wp 1972-2021.odt
 4

 24 (4) of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules. But he stated

 that Rule 24(5) of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules is a

 later Rule and explanation for measuring distance cannot be

 applied by the said Rule. On the basis of this finding, passed the

 above said order in the matter.

 5. In the present matter, the Commissioner failed to

 consider the fact that the issue which was raised about the Entry

 gate of the shop should be from East side or West side, the

 distance as provided under Section 24 (5) of the Maharashtra

 Country Liquor Rules was not a dispute raised before him in the

 matter. From finding recorded by learned Commissioner,

 nowhere shows any discussion on the material issues which was

 raised before him. In the impugned order passed by respondent-

 Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai,

 seems to be contrary to the factual as well as legal position. So

 also, same is cryptic in nature. In the circumstances, the

 following order is passed:

 ORDER

 i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

Uploaded on - 28/08/2026 Downloaded on - 01/11/2026 19:51:12
 wp 1972-2021.odt
 5

 ii) The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of State

 Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai dated 26.03.2021 is hereby

 quashed and set aside.

 iii) The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of State

 Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai to decide the same on its

 own merits.

 iv) The parties are directed to appear before the

 Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai on

 21.09.2026.

 v) The Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State,

 Mumbai, shall make endeavor to decide the same as

 expeditiously as possible.

 6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

 No order as to the costs.

 (PRAVIN S. PATIL J.)

 R.S. Sahare

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
 Uploaded on - 28/08/2026 Downloaded on - 01/11/2026 19:51:12