'Influential Person Gets Immediate Listing?' : Bombay High Court Refuses Urgent Hearing To Sameer Wankhede's Petition In Bar Licence Matter
The Bombay High Court took strong exception to Sameer Wankhede's writ petition against cancellation of his liquor licence being listed on board out of turn and refused urgent hearing. A bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar observed that the matter was not mentioned by Wankhede's advocates, neither was it granted circulation. "So if a poor litigant is there he has to...
The Bombay High Court took strong exception to Sameer Wankhede's writ petition against cancellation of his liquor licence being listed on board out of turn and refused urgent hearing.
A bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar observed that the matter was not mentioned by Wankhede's advocates, neither was it granted circulation.
"So if a poor litigant is there he has to wait, and an influential person gets immediate listing?" Justice Jamdar observed.
When Wankhede's lawyer Veena Thadani sought at least another date, Justice Patel asked her to come as per turn, "What heavens will fall? What is the tearing urgency?"
"Just because these two gentlemen have some war going on in the media doesn't mean we are going to grant urgent hearing," he added referring to the multiplicity of litigation between NCP leader Nawab Malik and Wankhede.
Earlier this month, Thane collector Rajesh Narvekar issued an order permanently cancelling the FL III Licence (bar licence) of his Hotel Sadguru in Vashi stating that he was a minor, when he procured the licence. Wankhede appealed to the Commissioner of State Excise who apparently orally refused to stay the order.
In his plea, Wankhede said he purchased the hotel along with his mother and signed on document his mother asked to sign.
"The Petitioner's mother, told the Petitioner, a college going student, to sign an application which was submitted on 13/2/1997 to the Collector for grant of a Licence for serving foreign liquor in the restaurant along with all documents."
In his civil writ petition filed through Advocate Vishal Thadani, Wankhede states, that he cannot be blamed for not disclosing his age since the Rules do not prescribe the age for applying for the FL III licence.
Moreover, Collector's action of cancellation of License in 2022 after 24 years, on the ground that it has been obtained through misrepresentation in 1997 is hopelessly barred by limitation.
The plea further states that the Collector does not have powers of review under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and therefore could not have reviewed his own Order granting the Licence.
According to Wankhede's plea, the FL III licence is an annual contract between the individual and the State. Hence, the licence granted in 1997 came to an end in 1998. Moreover, since Wankhede turned 18 merely 45 days after obtaining the licence, it has been renewed for 23 years every year.
"A contract with a minor is not void but is voidable at the instance of the minor, after he attains the age of majority but after completion of 18 years, the Petitioner has renewed the licence every year for the past 23 years," the petition notes.
Lastly, Wankhede contends that the Collector has referred to a Government Circular from 1989 by which the State Government has clarified that no licence should be granted to a person below the age of 21 years. However, this Circular has not been notified in the official Gazette as prescribed by Sub-Clause (2) of Section 139 and hence, it cannot operate as a law.