The Bombay High Court recently disposed of a PIL by quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Minister, State Excise on the revision application of a sports club for a liquor licence.

A PIL has been filed by one Reji Abraham who has assailed an order dated September 20, 2019 passed by the Minister, State Excise, on a revision application filed by Sports Club (respondent no.5),  for a liquor licence under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.

By the order, the Minister allowed the Sports Club’s revision application and set aside an order dated October 30, 2017 passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, confirming the order dated August 31, 2017 passed by the Collector, Mumbai, rejecting an application of  a Sports Club, for a liquor licence. The Minister’s order directs the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, to issue such licence to a Sports Club.

The challenge to the impugned order as mounted by the petitioner is on several grounds. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni heard the counsel for the parties for some time on issues as raised in the PIL petition.

However, after the hearing progressed for some time, the counsel for the Sports Club, on instructions, agreed that his client would not have any objection if the order passed by the Minister is set aside and the parties are relegated before the revisional authority to be heard afresh on the revision application filed by the Sports Club.

It is also agreed that the petitioner would be permitted to intervene in such proceedings and shall be entitled to be heard in the revision proceedings. The Municipal Corporation, which is the owner of the land and which has allotted the land to the Sports Club on specific terms and conditions, would also be represented in the revision proceedings and be heard by the revisional authority.

In view of the above consensus, the Court disposed the petition by the following order:-

(I) The impugned order dated September 20, 2019 passed by the Minister, State Excise on the revision application of respondent no.5, is quashed and set aside. 
(II). The petitioner is permitted to intervene in the revision proceedings and shall be entitled to be heard by the revisional authority. So also the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai would be entitled to participate and be heard by the revisional authority. 
(III) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (IV) The revisional authority shall decide the revision application as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from receipt of the copy of this order.
(V) PIL Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.