Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 820 (MP)

Naresh Shivhare v. State of M. P.

2021-12-14

ROHIT ARYA

body2021
ORDER 1. Petitioner-licencee is before this Court taking exception to the order passed by the Collector dated 28.4.2021 reviewing the order passed on 19.4.2021. By the order dated 19.4.2021, the Collector had initially imposed fine under section 48 of the M.P. Excise Act (for brevity "the Act") in connection with Crime No.318/2020 registered under section 34(1)(2) of the Act. However, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 10.3.2021. During this period, the Collector reviewed the order passed on 19.4.2021 by the impugned order confiscating the vehicle allegedly used in transportation of the liquor. 2. Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, while taking exception to the impugned order, submits that apart from the merits the impugned order of review passed by the Collector in fact the same suffers from the vice of coram non judice inasmuch as the Collector once passed the order under section 48 of the Act became functus officio and for want of provision to exercise the power of review, the impugned order of review is unsustainable in the eyes of law. To bolster the aforesaid submission, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Patel Narshi Thakershi And Others v. Shri Pradyumnsinghji Arjunsinghji reported in [ (1971) 3 SCC 844 (Para 4)]" quoted below: 4. The first question that we have to consider is whether Mr. Mankodi had competence to quash the order made by the Saurashtra Government on October 22, 1956. It must be remembered that Mr. Mankodi was functioning as the delegate of the State Government. The order passed by Mr. Mankodi, in law amounted to a review of the order made by Saurashtra Government. It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. The question whether the Government's order is correct or valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so long as that order is not set aside or declared void by a competent authority. Hence the same cannot be ignored. The question whether the Government's order is correct or valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so long as that order is not set aside or declared void by a competent authority. Hence the same cannot be ignored. The Subordinate Tribunals have to carry out that order. For this reason alone the order of Mr. Mankodi was liable to be set aside.' 3. Per contra, Shri Rohit Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, tried to persuade this Court contending that the Collector can always rectify the mistake crept in the order passed under Section 48 of the Act by resorting to inherent powers. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court applies on all fours in the frame of the factual matrix of the case in hand. There is no provision under the Act empowering the Collector to review the order passed under section 48 of Act. Hence, in absence thereof, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and consequently stands quashed. 5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is hereby allowed.