No Legal Sanctity Without Gazette Notification | Bombay High Court Quashes Excise Minister License Cancellation Order Passed After 15 Years
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar quashed the deletion of the petitioner’s name from the CL-III liquor license and set aside the orders passed by the Excise Minister and subordinate authorities. The Court held that the action taken against the petitioner without Gazette publication of the relevant policy was unsustainable in law. It further ruled that the Excise Minister lacked jurisdiction to order the Collector to review his prior decision. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the name of the petitioner in the license was directed to be restored.
The case concerned a dispute over a CL-III liquor license originally issued to Madhav Prasad Jaiswal. After his death, the license was transferred to his widow Jamunadevi Jaiswal, who subsequently inducted her daughter-in-law Sandhya as partner. Sandhya later withdrew, and Jamunadevi became the sole licensee again.
Upon application, the license was later transferred to the petitioner. The Collector and the Commissioner of State Excise had approved this transfer in 2008. For years, the petitioner ran the licensed business peacefully.
Subsequently, disputes arose between the legal heirs. Respondent No. 6, the widow of Madhav Prasad Jaiswal’s son, claimed that the license should have been transferred to her. She challenged the petitioner’s inclusion and approached the Excise Minister through representations. The Minister, exercising revisionary powers, directed on 24/09/2024 that the petitioner’s name be deleted. The Collector and other authorities implemented this order.
The petitioner challenged this action, arguing that the Excise Minister had no jurisdiction to direct such review. Further, it was argued that the underlying circular/policy based on which the Minister acted was never published in the Official Gazette and therefore had no legal sanctity.
The State and private respondents contested the petition. They argued that Jamunadevi’s initial induction as licensee was void ab initio as per the policy, and fraud was committed in the transfer process.
The Court considered the matter in detail and recorded several key observations.
It recorded that: “The object of publication in the Gazette is not merely to give information to public. Official Gazette is published under the authority of Government and has finality. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation, that mode must be followed and is imperative and cannot be dispensed with.”
Relying on judgments including B.K. Srinivasan vs. State of Karnataka, the Court stated: “If a question arises when was a particular order or rule made, it is the date of Gazette publication that is relevant and not the date of publication in a newspaper or in the media.”
The Court observed on the facts: “The Circular relied upon by the Minister was never published in the Official Gazette by the State Government. Accordingly, in absence of Gazette publication, the said Circular has no legal sanctity.”
Regarding jurisdiction, the Court recorded: “Respondent No. 1 – Minister directed Respondent No. 2 – Collector to review its earlier order. In fact, there is no statutory power vested with Respondent No. 2 to review its own order.”
It further noted: “Even Minister has no power directing the Collector to review order beyond provisions of law.”
Addressing the allegations of fraud and representation, the Court stated: “There is nothing on record to show how the Respondent No. 6 was misguided and misrepresented. In fact, disputes among the legal heirs were resolved and only thereafter application was filed.”
On the issue of delay, the Court recorded: “Respondent No. 6 approached after 15 years. Moreover, she has not produced any supporting documents stating that she is the legal heir of deceased late Shri Madhav Prasad Jaiswal.”
In conclusion, the Court ruled: “In view of the above, the order passed by the Minister placing reliance on the Circular, which is not published in the Gazette, and without jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed.”
The Court, after finding the impugned orders unsustainable in law, allowed the writ petition. It declared that the order dated 24/09/2024 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for State Excise, Maharashtra, which had rejected the petitioner’s revision application, was liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the subsequent order dated 25/09/2024 passed by the Collector, Nagpur and its implementation were also held to be invalid and required to be annulled.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that the petitioner’s name be restored in the CL-III license without delay. The Collector, Nagpur, was instructed to reinstate possession and permit the petitioner to resume business at the liquor shop immediately, thereby ensuring continuity of the petitioner’s lawful activities under the license.
Further, the Court clarified that pending civil disputes among the concerned parties were not being adjudicated in this proceeding. Such issues, if any, were left open to be resolved by civil courts as and when raised in appropriate proceedings.
The writ petition stood disposed of on these terms and all pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate; A.S. Manohar, Advocate; Y.N. Sambre, Advocate
For the Respondents: F.T. Mirza, Senior Advocate; D.I. Charlewar, Assistant Government Pleader; S.M. Puranik, Advocate; M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate
Case Title: Bhartidevi wd/o Motiram Moryani v. State of Maharashtra & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:4694
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2024
Bench: Justice M.S. Jawalkar
[Read/Download order]
