Bombay High Court

ATUL VIJAY MADANversusTHE COLLECTOR OF NASHIK STATE EXCISE DEPT AND ORS

Decided: 25 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

The High Court ordered that the appeal before the Commissioner of State Excise be heard on July 6, 2026, and directed an expeditious decision, thereby disposing of the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Atul Vijay Madan, challenged a March 30, 2026 order of the Nashik Collector that cancelled his induction as a partner in a licensed establishment and restored the licence to the original licencee. He appealed the order to the Commissioner of State Excise (Respondent No.2) on April 2, 2026, but the appeal and a stay application were not heard. The High Court noted that the appeal was scheduled for July 16, 2026, and ordered the hearing to be preponed to July 6, 2026. The court directed Respondent No.2 to decide the appeal expeditiously and, if a final hearing is not possible on that date, to entertain the stay application promptly. All parties' contentions were kept open for consideration, and the writ petition was disposed.

Issues considered

What procedural steps should the High Court take when an appeal against a Collector's order is pending but not yet heard?
Whether the High Court can direct the preponement of the hearing date of the appeal before the Commissioner of State Excise.
Whether a stay of execution of the Collector's order should be granted pending the appeal.

Subjects

licence
state excise
partner induction
appeal
stay order
preponement
writ petition
high court
administrative order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:26249

                                                                          908 wp 7626 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.7626 OF 2026

            Atul Vijay Madan                                     ...   Petitioner
                  versus
            The Collector of Nashik, State Excise
            Dept. and Ors.                                       …     Respondents

            Mr. Rajendra Pai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veena Thadani, Mr. Aloukik Pai, Ms.
            Rutuja Gaikwad, for Petitioner.
            Mr. Yatin Shashikant Kochare, B Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and
            4.
            Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam, Ms. Akanksha D. Gond, for
            Respondent No.3.

                                CORAM:      N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :      25 JUNE 2026

            P.C.

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 30 March 2026

            passed by the Respondent No.1 – Collector, Nashik, whereby the application

            filed by Respondent No.3 was allowed and the orders passed by the

            Collector, permitting the induction of the Petitioner as partner in the licenced

            establishment on 16 February 2024 and the consequential communication

            dated 16 May 2024, were cancelled and the licenced establishment came to

            be restored to the Respondent No.3, - original licencee.

            3.      The Petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order before

            the Commissioner of State Excise (R2). The grievance of the Petitioner is


            SSP                                                                     1/3
                                                              908 wp 7626 of 2026.doc

that, though the appeal was preferred on 2 April 2026, the appeal and the

application for stay to the execution and operation of the order passed by the

Respondent No.2 were not heard and decided.

4.    Mr. Kochare, learned Counsel for the Respondent – State had sought

time to take instructions as to when the appeal would be heard by the

Respondent No.2. A communication addressed by the concerned Officer is

placed on record, which indicates that the appeal is scheduled to be heard on

16 July 2026.

5.    Having regard to the fact that the appeal was filed on 2 April 2026 and

the hearing was held on 17 April 2026, this Court considers it appropriate to

direct the preponment of the date of hearing of the appeal.

6.    Respondent No.2 is, thus, directed to prepone the hearing of the appeal

to 6 July 2026.

7.    The parties shall appear before the Respondent No.2 on 6 July 2026.

8.    No separate notice now need to be issued to the Petitioner /

Respondents.

9.    Respondent No.2 is directed to hear and decide the appeal as

expeditiously as possible and if it is not possible to hear the appeal finally on

6 July 2026, take up the application for stay to the execution and operation of

the order passed by the District Collector on 30 March 2026 and decide the

same expeditiously.


SSP                                                                   2/3
                                                                                    908 wp 7626 of 2026.doc

                      10.      All contentions of all the parties are kept open for consideration before

                      the Respondent No.2.

                      11.      The Writ Petition stands disposed.




                                                                          ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                   3/3



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/06/2026 11:17:28

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…