B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.) Appellant/Petitioner questions judgment dated 23.06.2009, delivered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing his Writ Petition No.1682/2009. In that Writ Petition, he had challenged an order of Hon'ble Minister on behalf of State Government dated 09.03.2009, by which the Hon'ble Minister maintained the order dated 31.03.2003, passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, Mumbai. The Commissioner has refused to allow second Foreign Liquor Licence (FLII Licence), in his name. It is to be noted that the proceedings before the Commissioner, State Excise were in the form of an appeal under Section 137[2] of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Prohibition Act" for short). Earlier the Collector, Yavatmal passed an order on 29.04.2002, rejecting the application of appellant for renewal of FLII licence, as he is already holding MFL2 Licence. This appellate order of Commissioner maintained in revision by the State Government, has also been upheld by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) Briefly stated, the controversy is due to adjudication dated 31.03.2003 by the Commissioner, State Excise, after decision in Writ Petition No. 654/1980. The appellant claims that said adjudication by this Court, permits an individual to claim and have more than one licence under the Prohibition Act, and hence, second licence issued in his name in 1974 must be revived and renewed. Adjudication in Writ Petition No. 654/1980 along with several connected matters is on 19.03.1982 at Bombay.
(3.) Placing reliance upon the findings of Division Bench in Writ Petition no. 654/1980, particularly paragraph no. 6[1][a],[b], [f], [g], [h] and , submission is, this Court has found treatment discriminatory and hence permitted individual also to have licence in his name. It is claimed that learned Single Judge has overlooked this aspect.;