9.as.wp.6581.2003.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6581 OF 2003 Niphad Wines … Petitioner Versus Commissioner of State and anr. … Respondents *** Mr. Hiten Vyas a/w Mr. Rasik Raut for the Petitioner. Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. *** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 02 SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.09.2003 and 10.09.2003, by which the Petitioner’s license was suspended for a period of three months from the date of inspection i.e. 24.08.2003 and directions were issued to submit a report to the office of the Commissioner of State Excise, Nasik. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that earlier an action of sealing of his shop was taken which led to filing earlier Writ Petition No.30832 of 2003. He submitted that on 27.08.2003 a statement was made before this Court by the Deputy Superintendent that seal was removed, and therefore the said earlier petition was disposed of keeping all the contentions open. He submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality because the assumed power of the Commissioner is not specified or mentioned in the show cause notice before taking an action. 3. On the other hand, the learned AGP supported the impugned order contending inter alia that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an Vina Khadpe 1 VINA ARVIND KHADPE Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2026.09.03 10:38:10 +0530 9.as.wp.6581.2003.doc appeal to the State Government, under section 137(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. He submitted that the action was taken pursuant to a circular dated 01.08.2003 because illegalities were found. 4. It is important to note that on 12.09.2003, this Court had granted interim relief by which the impugned orders were stayed and the Respondent Authority was directed to open the seal applied over the shop of the Petitioner forthwith. It is not disputed that the said direction was complied with and the seal was opened. Therefore, for about 23 years, the impugned order has remain stayed, and the Petitioner is continuing his business. Due to such long lapse of time, the contentions raised are more of academic nature and does not call for any material adjudication requiring further consideration. 5. In that view of the matter, keeping the contentions of the State about the circular and powers thereunder open, and also keeping all contentions of the Petitioner about the Commissioner’s authority open, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Needless to mention that since the impugned order was for limited time of three months and it has remained stayed for such a long time, it is obvious that the impugned order cannot be executed. 6. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR verifiable copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Vina Khadpe 2