Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 14 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s. Wine Nook (Dealers) Private Limited, a private limited company operating a wine shop; Respondents – The Collector of Mumbai (MSD) and anr.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (No. 4414 of 2007) challenging the Collector’s order dated 21 March 2006 that levied a 50% privilege fee of Rs 1,81,500 for deletion of a director’s name from FL‑II liquor licence.
  • Background: The petitioner filed an application on 18 February 2005 to delete the name of a resigned director. The application, signed by the continuing directors, was supported by the director’s resignation letter, a board resolution, and an NOC. On 2 May 2005, Rule 8 of the Bombay Prohibition (Privileges Fees) Rules, 1954 was invoked and a nominal fee of Rs 10 was charged. Subsequently, the Collector imposed a 50% privilege fee under Rule 6, treating the director as a partner.
  • Legal Submissions: Petitioner's counsel argued that Rule 6 applies only to admission or withdrawal of a partner and not to a company director, relying on the precedent India International Co. Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.518 of 2001, dated 13 December 2005). Respondent‑State counsel contended that the petitioner bypassed the statutory appeal route under Sections 137 and 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, and should not be allowed to claim interest on the amount deposited by the State on 28 November 2007 following the Court’s interim order dated 30 August 2007.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court noted that the petition had been admitted on 30 August 2007, invoking the India International precedent, and that the matter should be decided on merits rather than sent back after a 19‑year pendency. It affirmed that the petitioner is a private limited company and that Rule 6 does not cover requests by a company, as held in India International Co. Pvt. Ltd (para 5). The Court also rejected the State’s argument on interest, observing that the deposit was made pursuant to the Court’s own order and the petitioner should not be penalised for the delay.

Final Outcome

  • The impugned order dated 21 March 2006 imposing a 50% privilege fee of Rs 1,81,500 is set aside.
  • The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the State, i.e., Rs 1,81,500, along with any accrued interest.
  • The writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.

Topics: Liquor Licensing, Privilege Fee