Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

NIPHAD WINESversusCOMMISSIONER OF STATE EXCISE and ANR.

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is disposed of as moot because the suspension order, already stayed for over two decades, cannot be executed.

Summary

The petitioner, Niphad Wines, challenged the Commissioner of State Excise's order suspending its liquor licence for three months and directing a report, alleging the Commissioner lacked authority and that no show‑cause notice was issued. The respondent argued that the petitioner could appeal to the State Government under section 137(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and that the action was based on a circular dated 01‑08‑2003. The High Court had earlier stayed the suspension and ordered the seal on the shop removed, which was complied with, allowing the petitioner to continue business for about 23 years. Given the prolonged stay, the court held that the issues were now academic and the suspension could not be executed. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as moot.

Issues considered

  • What is the extent of the Commissioner of State Excise's authority to suspend a liquor licence without a show‑cause notice?
  • Does the petitioner have an alternative remedy under section 137(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act?
  • Is the order of suspension enforceable after being stayed for an extended period?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • licence suspension
  • excise law
  • show cause notice
  • administrative authority
  • mootness
  • stay of order
  • Bombay Prohibition Act

Judgment

                                                                             9.as.wp.6581.2003.doc

       Digitally
       signed by
       VINA
VINA   ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KHADPE Date:
       2026.09.03                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       10:38:10
       +0530

                                          WRIT PETITION NO.6581 OF 2003

                    Niphad Wines                                     … Petitioner
                      Versus
                    Commissioner of State and anr.                   … Respondents

                                                       ***
                    Mr. Hiten Vyas a/w Mr. Rasik Raut for the Petitioner.

                    Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                                                          ***
                                                            CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                             DATE    : 02 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                    P.C. :

                    1.       Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Petitioner has
                    challenged the order dated 04.09.2003 and 10.09.2003, by which the
                    Petitioner’s license was suspended for a period of three months from the
                    date of inspection i.e. 24.08.2003 and directions were issued to submit a
                    report to the office of the Commissioner of State Excise, Nasik.

                    2.       Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that earlier an action
                    of sealing of his shop was taken which led to filing earlier Writ Petition
                    No.30832 of 2003. He submitted that on 27.08.2003 a statement was made
                    before this Court by the Deputy Superintendent that seal was removed, and
                    therefore the said earlier petition was disposed of keeping all the
                    contentions open. He submitted that the impugned order suffers from
                    illegality because the assumed power of the Commissioner is not specified
                    or mentioned in the show cause notice before taking an action.

                    3.       On the other hand, the learned AGP supported the impugned order
                    contending inter alia that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an

                    Vina Khadpe                               1
                                                       9.as.wp.6581.2003.doc




appeal to the State Government, under section 137(2) of the Bombay
Prohibition Act. He submitted that the action was taken pursuant to a
circular dated 01.08.2003 because illegalities were found.

4.     It is important to note that on 12.09.2003, this Court had granted
interim relief by which the impugned orders were stayed and the
Respondent Authority was directed to open the seal applied over the shop
of the Petitioner forthwith. It is not disputed that the said direction was
complied with and the seal was opened. Therefore, for about 23 years, the
impugned order has remain stayed, and the Petitioner is continuing his
business. Due to such long lapse of time, the contentions raised are more of
academic nature and does not call for any material adjudication requiring
further consideration.

5.     In that view of the matter, keeping the contentions of the State
about the circular and powers thereunder open, and also keeping all
contentions of the Petitioner about the Commissioner’s authority open, this
Writ Petition is disposed of. Needless to mention that since the impugned
order was for limited time of three months and it has remained stayed for
such a long time, it is obvious that the impugned order cannot be executed.

6.     All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR
verifiable copy of this order.




                                                (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Vina Khadpe                             2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.