Bombay High Court

VILASINI ANIL PAWAR AND ANOTHERversusM/S B G BHANDKAR AND CO PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH EXISTING PARTNERS AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed as the trial court’s judgment upholding the will of the deceased father is conclusive.

Summary

The petitioners, sisters of respondent No.4, challenged the order dated 24‑08‑2017 of the State Excise Minister which allowed a revision filed by respondent No.4 under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, to include his name in a liquor licence after their father's death. The petitioners argued that, as Class‑I legal heirs, their names should also be entered in the licence, whereas respondent No.4 relied on a will executed by the deceased father that named him as the sole heir. The will had been contested in Special Civil Suit No. 65 of 2015 and was upheld by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar on 20‑02‑2025. The High Court noted that the trial court’s decision affirmed the validity of the will, thereby rejecting the petitioners’ claim. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners, as Class‑I legal heirs, are entitled to have their names entered in the liquor licence after the death of their father.
Whether the will executed by the deceased father, which names respondent No.4 as the sole heir, is valid and binding for the licence.
Whether the Minister’s order allowing the revision under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, is legally sustainable.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 — s. 138

Subjects

liquor licence
inheritance
will
Class‑I heir
Maharashtra Prohibition Act
revision under Section 138
licensing authority

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38593


                     IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          905 WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2019

                              Vilasini Anil Pawar And Another
                                           VERSUS
            M/s B G Bhandkar And Co Partnership Firm Through Existing Partners
                                         And Others
                                              ...
                 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Vaidya Ameet Raveendra
                       AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. D. B. Bhange
                 Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4 : Mr. Nangare P. R.
                                              ...

                               CORAM      : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                               Dated      : August 25, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The present petition is filed in order to assail the order dated

           24/08/2017 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, State Excise, whereby the

           revision preferred by respondent No.4 under Section 138 of the

           Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 came to be allowed.



           2.    The petitioners and respondent No.4 are real sisters and brother.

           Their father, late Babanrao, had 50% share in a liquor licence bearing

           FL-2 Licence No.17-CL/FL/TOD-3, Licence No.3. After the demise of the

           father, the name of respondent No.4 came to be included in the

           licence. The petitioner raised an objection to the inclusion of the name

           of respondent No.4. Initially, the licence was suspended by the

           licensing authority, i.e. the Collector, vide order dated 25/03/2015.

           Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal against the said order, which

           came to be dismissed by the Commissioner of State Excise vide order

                                           Page 1 of 3
                                                            905 WP 638-2019



dated 19/12/2016. However, as stated above, the Hon’ble Minister

allowed the revision filed by respondent No.4.



3.    The contention of the petitioners is that they are also a Class-I

legal heir of their father and, therefore, after the demise of father,

their names also ought to have been included in the licence. As

against this, the contention of respondent No.4 is that the father had

executed a Will in his favour and, in accordance with the Will, his

name should be included in the licence in place of the deceased

father, to the exclusion of the other legal heirs.



4.    The Will in question was challenged in Special Civil Suit No.65

of 2015 filed by the present petitioner No.2. The suit has been

dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 20/02/2025 passed by

the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. The

Will, on the basis of which the claim of respondent No.4 is based, has

been upheld by the learned Trial Court. The learned Advocate for

respondent No.4 has tendered a copy of the said Judgment for

perusal of this Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner does

not dispute that the suit has been dismissed. Perusal of the

Judgment clearly indicates that the Will in question has been upheld

                                 Page 2 of 3
                                                             905 WP 638-2019



by the learned Trial Court. In view of the aforesaid, the claim of the

petitioners cannot be accepted.



5.       The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to

costs.




                                                ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




vj gawade/-.




                                  Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…