Balkrishna Gopal Telang And Anr vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principal Secretary State Excise Department And Ors

Held

The Court found substance in the Petitioners' contention that the reasons stated in the show cause notice dated November 28, 2025, and the conclusion arrived at by Respondent No. 2 were not congruent. The impugned order was passed on different grounds than those put to the Petitioners in the show cause notice. The entire exercise prima facie appeared to be initiated mala fide. The Court relied on the Apex Court's judgment in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi, 2025 INSC 982, which held that it is impermissible for an authority to invoke rules, claims, or grounds at a later stage that do not figure in the show cause notice. The decision-making process was found to be shrouded with suspicion. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated December 9, 2025. Respondent No. 2 was directed to hear the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and to pass a reasoned order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and kept all contentions open. If an adverse order was passed after rehearing, it would not be implemented for four weeks.

Facts

The Petitioners, Shri Balkrishna Gopal Telang and Shri Anil Balkrishna Telang, partners of Vikrant Wines, challenged a communication dated November 28, 2025, issued by Respondent No. 3 (Superintendent, State Excise Department, Pune) and an order dated December 9, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 2 (Collector, State Excise Department, Pune), suspending their FL-II license. The Petitioners argued that the action was arbitrary, highhanded, and influenced by a local MLA, especially as their shop had been operating since 2009. They claimed they were not given a proper hearing and that the grounds for the suspension order differed from the initial notice. The notice cited complaints from society occupants, while the order mentioned a letter from an MLA. The Petitioners also noted that other liquor shops in the same building were not targeted. The Respondents, through the AGP, supported the order, stating it was based on resident complaints.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order suspending the FL-II license of the Petitioners, passed by Respondent No. 2, is arbitrary, highhanded, and a colourable exercise of power, particularly in light of the alleged influence of a local MLA and the discrepancy in grounds cited in the show cause notice and the final order? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and administrative law). 2. Whether the Respondents acted with mala fide intent by passing the suspension order on December 9, 2025, despite knowing the writ petition was scheduled for hearing on December 8, 2025, and by allegedly manipulating the hearing time of the show cause notice to 10:00 AM when the Court commenced at 11:00 AM, thereby preventing the Petitioners from attending? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's Contentions: The entire exercise was carried out with utmost haste at the behest of a local MLA and to support other liquor shops in the same building. The Petitioners were not given a hearing and were targeted. The notice dated November 28, 2025, was based on complaints from society occupants, but the order dated December 9, 2025, was passed on different grounds, specifically mentioning a letter from an MLA. The Respondents intentionally scheduled the hearing at 10:00 AM on December 8, 2025, to frustrate court proceedings, and the Petitioners could not attend as they were before the High Court. They were not provided with complete material documents. The order was passed behind their back. Reliance was placed on M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi, 2025 INSC 982. Respondents' Contentions: The AGP supported the order, stating it was passed after considering resident complaints. The order was correctly issued, and the petition should be dismissed.