Judgment B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Considering the nature of controversy, we are deciding the writ petition finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith, with the consent of parties. 2. Both sides have filed written notes of arguments. Petitioner has been paying costs of supervision as per 6th wage revision for State Government employees from 22.4.2009. Challenge in the petition is expressly restricted to its retrospective levy and recovery for the period from 01.01.2006 till 31.03.2009. We, therefore, find it appropriate to begin with settled legal position. It will be necessary to make a reference to Section 58A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1949 Act”), which reads thus : "58A. Supervision over manufacture, etc. The State Government may by general or special order direct that the manufacture, import, export, transport, storage, sale, purchase, use, collection or cultivation of any intoxicant, denatured spirituous preparation, hemp, mhowra flowers, or molasses shall be under the supervision of such Prohibition and Excise or Police staff as it may deem proper to appoint, and that the cost of such staff shall be paid to the State Government by the person manufacturing, importing, exporting, transporting, storing, selling, purchasing, using, collecting or cultivating the intoxicant, denatured spirituous preparation, hemp, mhowra flowers or molasses: Provided that, the State Government may exempt any class of persons or institutions from paying the whole or any part of the cost of such staff." 3. Challenge to the retrospective recovery of such charges due to retrospective wage revision has been considered and negated at Aurangabad in judgment dated 10.7.2012 in Sahakar Maharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & other Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others, to which one of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is party. Similar view is reached by other Division Bench at Bombay in 2013 (6) LJSOFT 3 Kolhapur Sugar Mills ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., after considering the provisions contained Section 58A and 114 in Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, Revised pay scales as per the Sixth Pay Commission were made applicable with retrospective effect from 1-1-2006 and direction was issued to recover the arrears. State Government is held entitled to recover the entire amount payable by way of salaries and allowances to the supervisory staff as per Section 58A. State Government is held entitled to recover the entire amount payable by way of salaries and allowances to the supervisory staff as per Section 58A. Cost of supervision may have been paid in advance but, there is no prohibition to claim the balance amount on account of retrospective application of wage revision. Fact that the petitioner cannot recover such amount demanded subsequently from the customers can not make the Section arbitrary or unconstitutional The decision in the case of Government of Maharashtra and Others v. M/s. Deokar's Distillery 2003 (4) LJSOFT (SC) 14 = 2003 (5) SCC 669 & earlier judgment in PolychemLimited and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others (1998)6 SCC 196 are considered by this Court. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Maharashtra and Others v. M/s. Deokar's Distillery (supra), is rendered by a larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court consisting of the three Hon'ble Judges and the decision in the case of Polychem Limited (supra), was of a bench consisting of the two Hon'ble Judges. The larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has in terms held that the words "cost of such staff" used in Section 58A of the 1949 Act , will include the additional amounts which become recoverable on account of upward revision of pay scales of the supervisory staff with retrospective effect. In fact, the majority view in the judgment of Larger Bench in Paragraph No.77 holds that Polychem case was decided on the basis of a decision which was already overruled. The very object of Section 58A of the 1949 Act is, held to ensure that the licensee bears the entire cost of the supervisory staff employed by the State Government. The State Government is entitled to recover all costs incurred for the purposes of employing supervisory staff including the pay and other allowances of the Government employees posted for supervision. In Paragraph 69 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is noted that the licensee has to give an undertaking at the time of obtaining grant or renewal of the license that he would abide by all orders made under the said 1949 Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. In view of law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court did not see arbitrariness in Section 58A or Section 114 of the said 1949 Act. 4. In view of law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court did not see arbitrariness in Section 58A or Section 114 of the said 1949 Act. 4. This settled legal position is not in dispute before us. Effort of Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is to urge that there has to be a general or special order of State Government to enable the department to claim the supervision charges from 1.1.2006 i.e., retrospectively. Petitioner is paying the current demand at revised rate regularly but the decision or direction by the Commissioner of Prohibition and State Excise to recover supervision charges at revised rates for earlier period has no legal sanction. The State government has not delegated its power under Section 58A to said Commissioner and hence, recovery of amount of difference from the petitioner is bad. Thus, the “delegation” is the only issue in this writ petition. 5. In its written notes of arguments, apart from Section 58A, Respondents also rely upon Rule 17(12) of the Rules of 1966 and sub-rule (12) of Rule 6 of 1973 Rules. Section 2(5) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 defining “Commissioner” and Section 3 is also being used. By inviting attention to relevant legal provisions, effort of respondents is to show the legal liability already accepted by the licensee in terms of the license and power with the Commissioner to enforce it. They submit that petitioner can not wriggle out of it. 6. Impugned memo dated 31.10.2010 sent by office of the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra Government under signature of its Chief Accounts Officer, shows that recovery of supervision charges at new rate due to implementation of 6th wage revision from 1.1.2006. It also directs that instructions contained in GR no. IDC/1479/s.h./17 dated 19.11.1989, must be adhered to. Demand notice dated 6.12.2010 served upon the petitioner in pursuance thereof is also assailed here. This GR dated 19.11.1989 is not produced before us by the parties. 7. However, the State Government has placed reliance upon Rule 6(12) of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973. It stipulates that any holder of the license manufacturing country liquor or potable liquor has to pay the supervision charges of the state excise staff posted by the State Excise Department for the supervision of said unit. 8. Petitioner pleads that it has a CLI license to manufacture and sell country liquor. It stipulates that any holder of the license manufacturing country liquor or potable liquor has to pay the supervision charges of the state excise staff posted by the State Excise Department for the supervision of said unit. 8. Petitioner pleads that it has a CLI license to manufacture and sell country liquor. Perusal of said license no. 23/7576 shows that as per condition no.1 therein, no manufacture or sell can be carried, except under the supervision of a Prohibition and Excise Officer appointed to be in-charge of the manufactory, called as 'Manufactory officer”. Licensee has to abide by the conditions of the license, provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and Rules, Regulations and Orders made thereunder. He has to give an undertaking to that effect in form C.L. XX. Petitioner also has RSII license to buy, possess and use rectified spirit including absolute alcohol. Clause 6 of this license requires licensee to pay to Government such cost of the State Excise staff, if it is appointed by State Excise for supervision over the use of rectified spirit, as may be fixed by the Commissioner. Office of Commissioner has issued a circular dated 19.11.1981 and petitioner has produced it as Annexure 3. It is having no. RTS 1479/Sup. Ch./XVII. This number and number of GR dated 19.11.1989 is, same. Condition no. 1 in this circular provides that it is Commissioner who has to communicate from time to time the rates of supervision charges to be recovered from the licensees in respect of each post. It is not necessary to look into other details thereof. But, terms of the licenses mentioned supra and this circular show a statutory obligation already cast upon the petitioner and accepted by it to be binding upon it. It reveals that the power with the State under Section 58A is already exercised and a general arrangement governing all the wage revisions in future is already in place. No special orders are therefore necessary on each occasion to enable recovery of amount of difference in arrears on account of retrospective wage revision. Insistence of petitioner on passing of such orders under Section 58A, by the State Government on occasion of 2006 wage revision is, misconceived. 9. No special orders are therefore necessary on each occasion to enable recovery of amount of difference in arrears on account of retrospective wage revision. Insistence of petitioner on passing of such orders under Section 58A, by the State Government on occasion of 2006 wage revision is, misconceived. 9. Section 3 of the 1949 Act empowers the State Government to appoint by notification in official gazette an officer to be called the “Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise” who, subject to the control of State Government and subject to such general or special orders as the State Government may from time to time make, can exercise such powers, and perform such duties and functions as are conferred upon, by or under the provisions of this Act and superintends the administration and carries out generally the provisions of said Act. Section 10 enables State Government to delegate any of the powers exercisable by it under the Act to the Commissioner or such other officers as it deems fit. As per Section 11, State Government may permit business in liquor subject to the manner and to the extent provided by the Act, Rules, Regulations or Orders or in accordance with the terms and conditions license, permit, pass or authorization granted thereunder. Section 114(1) allows recovery of cost of supervision of staff appointed under Section 58A as arrears of land revenue. Section 143(1) permits framing of Rules by the State Government for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Act. The relevant rules and conditions in license, as also undertaking given by petitioner are already referred to by us above. 10. Finance department by notification dated 22.04.2009, made the 6th wage revision applicable from 1.1.2006 to the employees of State including those in excise department. State Government has pointed out that thereafter a note was moved by the accounts department before the Commissioner of State Excise who approved it on 31.10.2010. It is seen that the impugned communication is issued then on 6.12.2010, after approval of the Commissioner. The finding that decision to recover costs of supervision after each pay revision need not be taken afresh by the State Government, also holds good even for arrears as wage revisions have always been retrospective. It is seen that the impugned communication is issued then on 6.12.2010, after approval of the Commissioner. The finding that decision to recover costs of supervision after each pay revision need not be taken afresh by the State Government, also holds good even for arrears as wage revisions have always been retrospective. Reliance by petitioner upon paragraph 26 in judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Government of Maharashtra and Others v. M/s. Deokar's Distillery (supra) to urge that the power is with State Government alone and has not been exercised by it on eve of 6th wage revision is misplaced. Hon'ble Apex Court interprets the legal provisions to point out the availability of power and it does not lay down that the same be exercised on each and every occasion. We also find that para 2 of circular dated 19.11.1981, does not militate with retrospective wage revision or recovery of arrears of supervision charges on that account. Once that power is seen in Section 58A, and license given to petitioner by the State carries consequential conditions in furtherance thereof, the office of Commissioner is within its jurisdiction to see that said obligation consented to by the licensee is discharged by him, and to use necessary powers therefor. These powers flow from Section 3 of the 1949 Act, and delegation by the State under Section 10 is uncalled for once the petitioner itself accepts the corresponding obligation and subject to it, enjoys the license. The general or special directions seen in Section 58A by the petitioner are really unwarranted in view of the license terms and an undertaking given by the licensees, like petitioner. Petitioner has urged that the Commissioner, due to Section 3, can not exercise the powers of State Government under Section 58A of the 1949 Act. It is argued that power of superintendence conferred upon him does not enable him usurp those powers, particularly when there are no general or special directions. The license given to petitioner is a privilege conferred upon him and it can not be seen or evaluated as a contract between the State Government and the licensee. The line of arguments adopted by the petitioner does not hold any water. 11. Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel has cited State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554 , where in para 16 the Hon'ble Apex Court explains connotation of concept of superintendence. The line of arguments adopted by the petitioner does not hold any water. 11. Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel has cited State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554 , where in para 16 the Hon'ble Apex Court explains connotation of concept of superintendence. Where the power is limited or fettered or taken away by some specific provision to the contrary, the general power of superintendence comprehends power to issue directions, orders for performance of duty in a certain manner, directing some one else to discharge certain function, refrain from performing certain duty etc. superintendence connotes supervision which implies a hierarchy viz. supervisor and the one supervised. It, therefore, means keeping a check, watch over the work of another who may be a subordinate in a hierarchy of authority. Supervision is not merely a negative thing so as to keep a watch but implies giving of direction, guidance, even instructions, and in a given case, and in a given situation asking one, who is being supervised to forebear from doing a thing and directing some one else to do that thing. These observations of Hon'ble Apex Court do not advance the cause of petitioner here as the office of the Commissioner is within four corners of its authority to see that every licensee complies with the license conditions. Petitioner has not placed before us any general or special order of State Government which may militate with this discharge of his powers of superintendence by the Commissioner. Entire argument of petitioner overlooks the fact that directions which it expects under Section 58A are already transformed into and stand incorporated as terms of license subject to which it has been offered the privilege to manufacture or sell the prohibited commodity. 12. In view of this discussion, the challenge in writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.