JUDGMENT:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing immediately. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order. 3. Deceased Ramkrushna was holding a licence CL-III for running liquor business at village Silli, Tah. Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur. He died on 18/6/2006 leaving behind children from his two wivesnamely Satyabhama and Urpuda. Both the wives had predeceased. Respondent No.2 Diwakar is son from one wife and respondent No.3 Dilip is from another wife. On death of Ramkrushna, the respondents No.2 and 3 applied before the Collector for transfer of the licence in their names. That was objected to by the petitioner No.1 Prafulla, who is also son of Ramkrushna and petitioner No.2 Lata, who is married daughter of deceased Ramkrushna. Respondent No.4 is widowed daughter and respondent No.5 is widowed daughter-in-law of deceased Ramkrushna. Respondents No.6, 7 and 8 are the sons of respondent No.5 and grand sons of deceased Ramkrushna. In view of the objection taken by the petitioners to transfer the licence in the name of respondent Nos.2 and 3 only, the Collector passed order on 16/11/2006 suspending the licence in view of the guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra by Circular No. BPO-1093/EXC2, dated 20/8/1996. That order was challenged by the respondents No.1 and 2 before the Commissioner under Section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. However, their appeal came to be dismissed. Thereafter respondents No.1 and 2 filed revision application being No. R.V.N 1108/RV -12/EXC3 under Section 138 of the Act. The learned Minister for State Excise allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Collector directing that the licence be transferred in the names of the respondents No.2, 3 and 4. That order has been challenged in the present petition. 4. At the outset it may be stated that the petitioner No.1 Prafulla s/o Ramkrushna Deshmukh has withdrawn himself and. therefore, only petitioner No.2, the married daughter of deceased Ramkrushna is prosecuting this petition. 5. As per the Circular dated 20/8/1996 issued by the Home Department, Govt. That order has been challenged in the present petition. 4. At the outset it may be stated that the petitioner No.1 Prafulla s/o Ramkrushna Deshmukh has withdrawn himself and. therefore, only petitioner No.2, the married daughter of deceased Ramkrushna is prosecuting this petition. 5. As per the Circular dated 20/8/1996 issued by the Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, under the Bombay Prohibition Act, certain guidelines have been given in respect of addition or deletion of partners, transfer of licence and inclusion of the names of legal heirs in case of the death of the licences, The guidelines permitted the transfer of licence in the name of legal heirs of the deceased licences on payment of regular privilege fees. Clause 10 requires that at the time of transferring the licence on the death of a licences to the names of the legal heirs, if there are more than one legal heir, the licence should be transferred to the name of one or more amongst them and NOC should be obtained from the remaining legal heirs and the licence should be transferred. It is also provided that if there is dispute between the legal heirs or there is dispute as to who is the legal heir, till such time as the dispute is not settled, the licence should not be transferred to anyone's name and should be suspended. Admittedly, after the death of licences Ramkrushna, dispute arose between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 and, therefore, the Collector suspended the licence by his order dated 16/11/2006 and for the same reason the appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner. 6. In the impugned order passed by the learned Minister in the revision filed by the respondents No.2 and 3, the Minister has noted that during his life time the licences Ramkrushna had made an application on 191 02/2005 before the Collector that he was unable to carry out the business and, therefore, the name of his son Dilip respondent No.3 be included in the licence. However, no action was taken by the Collector on that application. Deceased Ramkrushna had allegedly made a Will dated IJ/8/2004 nominating respondent No.3 Dilip for the grant of the licence. Of course, that Will is yet to be proved and some proceedings are pending before the Civil Court. However, no action was taken by the Collector on that application. Deceased Ramkrushna had allegedly made a Will dated IJ/8/2004 nominating respondent No.3 Dilip for the grant of the licence. Of course, that Will is yet to be proved and some proceedings are pending before the Civil Court. The Minister noted that the petitioner No.1 Prafulla and Sudhir s/o Ramkrushna, who died later on, had given no objection in favour of applicants No.1 & 2 (respondents No.2 & 3). Sudhir is succeeded by widow Sangita- respondent No.5 and sons respondents No.6 to 8. In view of this, it appears that the only dispute was in respect of respondent No.2 Latathe married daughter of deceased Ramkrushna. The learned Minister noted that she is in service and in view of this, she could not be included as a licences in the said licence and once she is found not entitled, there will be no dispute amongst the legal heirs of Ramkrushna, who would be legally entitled to transfer the licence. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned Minister is against the guidelines issued by the Government in 1996 and as the dispute exists between the legal heirs of Ramkrushna, the licence cannot be transferred in the name of any of the legal heirs and it has to be kept in suspension as long as the dispute does not come to an end. He contends that the learned Minister passed the order wrongly and illegally and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent NO.1-State of Maharashtra and the learned Counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 support the order passed by the Minister. 9. There is no dispute that the petitioner No.2 Smt. Lata w/o Suresh Narad is in service of the Government of Maharashtra. Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 clearly provides that no Government servant shall except with the previous sanction of the Government, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any other employment. This rule is applicable to the petitioner No.2, because she is in the employment of the Government of Maharashtra. It is not her contention that she has obtained previous sanction from the Government to indulge in any business. This rule is applicable to the petitioner No.2, because she is in the employment of the Government of Maharashtra. It is not her contention that she has obtained previous sanction from the Government to indulge in any business. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner No. 2 would not be participating in day to day business and she could be a sleeping partner. However, in view of the language of Rule 16 (I), it is clear that a Government servant can not engage in any business even indirectly. A sleeping partner also deals in the business indirectly and is entitled to all profit and loss in the business of the partnership firm. In view of the ban under Rule 16( 1) against engaging in any trade or business, the petitioner No.2 could not be legally entitled to be included as a licences in the licence of the deceased Ramkrushna. If her claim is not considered, there appears no dispute among the legal heirs of deceased Ramkrushna and, therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Minister. 10. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons the writ petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.