IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 905 WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2019 Vilasini Anil Pawar And Another VERSUS M/s B G Bhandkar And Co Partnership Firm Through Existing Partners And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Vaidya Ameet Raveendra AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. D. B. Bhange Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4 : Mr. Nangare P. R. ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : August 25, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The present petition is filed in order to assail the order dated 24/08/2017 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, State Excise, whereby the revision preferred by respondent No.4 under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 came to be allowed. 2. The petitioners and respondent No.4 are real sisters and brother. Their father, late Babanrao, had 50% share in a liquor licence bearing FL-2 Licence No.17-CL/FL/TOD-3, Licence No.3. After the demise of the father, the name of respondent No.4 came to be included in the licence. The petitioner raised an objection to the inclusion of the name of respondent No.4. Initially, the licence was suspended by the licensing authority, i.e. the Collector, vide order dated 25/03/2015. Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal against the said order, which came to be dismissed by the Commissioner of State Excise vide order Page 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:38593 905 WP 638-2019 dated 19/12/2016. However, as stated above, the Hon’ble Minister allowed the revision filed by respondent No.4. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that they are also a Class-I legal heir of their father and, therefore, after the demise of father, their names also ought to have been included in the licence. As against this, the contention of respondent No.4 is that the father had executed a Will in his favour and, in accordance with the Will, his name should be included in the licence in place of the deceased father, to the exclusion of the other legal heirs. 4. The Will in question was challenged in Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2015 filed by the present petitioner No.2. The suit has been dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 20/02/2025 passed by the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. The Will, on the basis of which the claim of respondent No.4 is based, has been upheld by the learned Trial Court. The learned Advocate for respondent No.4 has tendered a copy of the said Judgment for perusal of this Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner does not dispute that the suit has been dismissed. Perusal of the Judgment clearly indicates that the Will in question has been upheld Page 2 of 3 905 WP 638-2019 by the learned Trial Court. In view of the aforesaid, the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 5. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 3 of 3