Bombay High Court
SHRI. VITTHAL AMBAJI KHARATMOLversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH MINISTER OF STATE EXCISE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The transfer of the liquor licences is not eligible for exemption and the privilege fees imposed are upheld.
Summary
The petitioner sought to overturn orders that imposed privilege fees for transferring two liquor licences after being compelled to move his shop from a railway safety zone. The original premises were deemed illegal under a court‑directed public‑interest litigation requiring removal of encroachments within 10 metres of the railway line. The petitioner argued that the transfer was not voluntary and therefore exempt from fees, relying on a sale deed and a NOC from the shop owner. The respondents contended that the original occupation was unlawful and that the Bombay Prohibition (Privilege Fees) Rules, 1954, do not allow retrospective exemptions. The court held that because the initial occupation was illegal, no benefit or exemption could be granted for the licence transfer, and the impugned orders were upheld. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether privilege fees can be levied for transfer of a liquor licence when the transfer is compelled by a court‑ordered removal from a railway safety zone
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for exemption under the development‑scheme provision of the Bombay Prohibition (Privilege Fees) Rules
- Whether the delay in filing the appeal bars the revision
- Whether the illegality of the original occupation precludes any benefit under the privilege‑fee policy
Subjects
- liquor licence
- privilege fee
- licence transfer
- safety zone
- railway encroachment
- public interest litigation
- excise law
- delay in appeal
- exemption clause
Judgment
20-WP-9115-2011 @.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9115 OF 2011
Shri. Vitthal Ambaji Kharatmol ...Petitioner
Versus
NAVNATH
SITARAM State Of Maharashtra Through Minister Of State
WAGHMARE
Excise And Ors. ...Respondents
Digitally signed ****
by NAVNATH
SITARAM Ms. Hitasvi Sanghavi i/b Adv. Vinayak Salokhe for the Petitioner.
WAGHMARE
Date: 2026.08.18
Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan AGP the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.
10:47:16 +0530 ****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is taking exception to order dated 03.08.2011
passed by the Minister (State Excise), order dated 20.08.2010 passed by
Commissioner of State Excise, Mumbai in Appeal No. 50 of 2010 and
order dated 03.11.2006 passed by the Collector (Mumbai suburban
area) by which the Petitioner was charged privilege fee for transfer of
liquor license from one place to another.
3. FL-II license bearing No. 25 and CL-III license bearing No.
303 initially standing in the name of Rekha Ram Tahilramani, used for
M/s. Ambar Wines for location of Shankar Deval, R.C. Marg, Chembur,
Mumbai was sought to be transferred to a new place viz. CTS No.
238/222 & 223 Village Anik, Taluka Kurla, Vashi Naka, Chembur
Mumbai. The order directing payment of privilege fees was passed on
03.11.2006 by the Collector directing the Petitioner to pay 3,99,500/-
and 84,700/- for transfer of FL-II and CL-III licence respectively. The
petitioner, after a long gap of about 4 years, filed Appeal No. 50 of 2010
Navnath Waghmare 1
20-WP-9115-2011 @.doc
in March 2010 challenging the said order. The Commissioner for State
Excise dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay by order dated
20.08.2010. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Revision
No. FLR.1210/RA-60/EXC-2 before the Minister of State Excise who
dismissed it, confirming the orders below, under impugned order dated
03.08.2011.
4. The petition was admitted on 25.01.2012. It is informed by
learned counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner has paid the amount
under protest.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the transfer
of liquor shop was required due to notice received by the Railway
Authorities as a result of an order passed by Court in Public Interest
Litigation (PIL). She submitted that such notice was the cause of
transfer and it was not a voluntary transfer and therefore the privilege
fee could not have been charged. She contended that if for the purpose
of development, any liquor license is required to be transferred, then it
cannot be treated as voluntary transfer. She relied on copy of sale deed
of shop and NOC granted by the owner dated 18.10.2003 in favour of
licence holder to run the shop. She submitted that therefore Petitioner’s
occupation can not be treated as illegal. She prayed for setting aside the
impugned order and refund of amount with interest.
6. On the other hand, learned AGP appearing for the
Respondents relied upon the affidavit in reply dated 11.03.2026 filed by
Superintendent of State Excise, Mumbai contending inter alia that the
shop/premises from which the Petitioner was originally carrying on
business was unauthorised on the Railway land and the Petitioner’s
occupation can not be considered as lawful for extending any benefit.
She further submitted that the in P.I.L No. 1791 of 1998, this Court
Navnath Waghmare 2
20-WP-9115-2011 @.doc
issued specific directions for removal of encroachments falling within
the safety zone i.e. upto 10 mtrs from the railway line, pursuant to
which notice was issued by Railway to Petitioner causing the transfer.
Relying on notifications dated 04.06.2009 & 07.07.2010 in respect of
Rule 4 of Bombay Prohibition (Privilege Fees) Rules, 1954, it is
contended that exceptions, if any, can not be applied retrospectively.
She submitted that therefore, the impugned order is rightly passed.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record.
8. It is not disputed that Railway Authorities was required to
issue notice to the Petitioner pursuant to direction given by this Court in
a public interest litigation taking note of safety zone of 10 meter
required to be kept around railway line. The notice dated 12.05.2005
issued by Railway Authorities is considered in the impugned order. It is
held in the impugned order that when the original occupation of the
Petitioner itself was illegal, then any benefit under the applicable policy
about transfer (such as transfer necessitated by development work)
cannot be granted to the Petitioner. Although the cause of action for the
revision was rejection by the Commissioner on the ground of long delay,
still the Minister has considered the contentions on merits. Be that as it
may. Also, NOC granted by the owner of shop in favour of the Petitioner
to run wine shop, per se, would not make the shop or construction
legal.
9. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, considering
that the Petitioner was required to transfer the shop because original
place of business was held illegally within safety zone belonging to
Railways which was directed to be vacated by order of this court, no
benefit can be given to Petitioner. In such facts and circumstances,
Navnath Waghmare 3
20-WP-9115-2011 @.doc
transfer of licence, as required by the Petitioner, can not be considered
as for ‘development scheme’ or eligible for any other exemption clause.
10. No fault can be found in the impugned order. The view taken
is most probable one. There is no perversity in the impugned order.
Hence no interference is required.
11. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to
costs.
12. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Navnath Waghmare 4
Checking your session…