JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at admission stage with consent of both the sides. 2. The petitioner/ Shri Saikrupa Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd., Hiradgaon has challenged the impugned order dtd. 10/2/2022 passed by respondent no.1 in MPL-0621/P.K.81/State Excise-3. 3. The petitioner/Company is running sugar factory and distillery plant at Hiradgaon, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. The flying squad of State Excise Department, on receiving relevant information conducted raid on the distillery plant of the petitioner on 14/3/2020 in presence of two panch witnesses. At the time of raid, it was found that the petitioner/sugar factory has sold 80,000 Ltrs. rectified spirit worth of Rs.9,75,000.00 to Rachana Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.,which was not in existence. The truck along with rectified spirit of 80,000 Ltrs. came to be seized. The F.I.R. came to be registered against the Managing Director of the petitioner and four others. Accordingly, Managing Director of the petitioner and four other persons came to be arrested in Crime No.54/2020 for the offences punishable under Ss. 65(A)(E), 80(1), 83, 90, 108, 98 (2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for sake of convenience). Now the investigation of that crime is over and charge-sheet is filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Rahata. 4. Respondent no.2 issued show-cause notice dtd. 7/12/2020 to the petitioner as to why its distillery licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner replied the said notice. Respondent no.1/Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, after hearing both the sides was pleased to cancel the distillery licence of the petitioner by impugned order dtd. 10/2/2022. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department, Mumbai, the petitioner has preferred this petition by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Heard Mr R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr V.S. Kadam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr D.R. Kale, learned Incharge Government Pleader for the State. 7. Mr Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to the showcause notice dtd. 7/12/2020 issued by the Commissioner, State Excise Department, Maharashtra State. He pointed out that the Commissioner, State Excise has not cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai has cancelled the distillery licence of the petitioner by invoking Sec. 54 of the Act. 7/12/2020 issued by the Commissioner, State Excise Department, Maharashtra State. He pointed out that the Commissioner, State Excise has not cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai has cancelled the distillery licence of the petitioner by invoking Sec. 54 of the Act. He submitted that in view of provisions of Sec. 54 of the Act, the Commissioner is empowered to cancel the licence and not the Principal Secretary. He submitted that in this case, the Commissioner, State Excise has issued showcause notice and Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department has cancelled the licence which is contrary to the provisions of Sec. 54 of the Act. He pointed out that the grounds taken in the show-cause notice dtd. 7/12/2020 are to the extent of alleged illegal sale of rectified spirit to Rachana Chemicals Pvt. Ltd and incorrect entries in the register maintained by the petitioner. The impugned order of cancellation of the licence dtd. 10/2/2022 speaks other grounds also which have no foundation in the show-cause notice. Mr Dhorde, Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the Principal Secretary, State Excise is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of Sec. 54 of the Act and liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that distillery unit of the petitioner has stopped its operation since 10/2/2022 in view of cancellation of licence by respondent no.1. More than 100 employees working in the distillery unit have been affected. The sugar season is remained hardly for one month. He, therefore, urged that this aspect also needs to be considered. 9. Mr Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following citations : (i) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Nagayach and ors., reported in 2013 7 SCC 25 (ii) Chandrika Jha Vs. State of Bihar and ors., reported in 1984 2 SCC 41 (iii) Raviyashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and ors., reported in 2012 SCC 407 (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Shital International, reported in 2011 1 SCC 109 (v) Satish s/o Damodhar Kasar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 81 (vi) K.V. Acharya and anr., Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in 2000 (3) Mh.L.J. 90 (vii) Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. Vs. Shital International, reported in 2011 1 SCC 109 (v) Satish s/o Damodhar Kasar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 81 (vi) K.V. Acharya and anr., Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in 2000 (3) Mh.L.J. 90 (vii) Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. Vs. The Chief Election Officer, New Delhi and ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 (viii) Girija Timappa Shetty Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Wagle Estate, Div., Dist. Thane and Ors., reported in 1997 (1) ALL M.R. 256 10. Mr D.R. Kale, learned Government Pleader for respondents No.1 to 3/ State supported the impugned order passed by the Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Mr Kale, learned Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the Commissioner, State Excise has submitted his report to the State Government regarding illegalities found in the distillery unit of the petitioner. On the basis of said report, upon authorisation by the Government, the Principal Secretary has conducted hearing. An opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has given in-detail reply in writing. In view of serious illegalities found in the unit of the petitioner, the State Government, after perusing the report and submissions made on behalf of petitioner during the course of hearing was pleased to cancel the licence of the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Sec. 54 (1) (c) of the Act. The impugned order dtd. 10/2/2022 was issued with the approval of the Government. The Government has inherent powers to issue all licences and said powers are delegated to various authorities working under the Government. The order is passed by using inherent powers of the Government. 11. I have considered the submissions of Mr Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Kale, learned Govt.Pleader for respondents/State. I have also gone through the show-cause notice dtd. 7/12/2020 issued by the Commissioner, State Excise, reply given by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dtd. 17/1/2021, copy of impugned order passed by the Principal Secretary dtd. 10/2/2022 and other documents and papers produced by the petitioner. I have also gone through the provisions of Sec. 54 and Sec. 56 of the Act as well as other provisions and the Rules framed thereunder. 12. Mr Kale, learned Govt. 17/1/2021, copy of impugned order passed by the Principal Secretary dtd. 10/2/2022 and other documents and papers produced by the petitioner. I have also gone through the provisions of Sec. 54 and Sec. 56 of the Act as well as other provisions and the Rules framed thereunder. 12. Mr Kale, learned Govt. Pleader also invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1/Principal Secretary, State Excise cancelling licence of the petitioner is proper, correct and legal. The powers were relegated to the Principal Secretary and on that basis, he has passed the impugned order which is legal. He submitted that because of illegal acts of the petitioner, the State has suffered revenue loss. This aspect needs to be considered. 13. Mr Kale, learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order is passed after hearing the petitioner, thereby following the principles of natural justice. Though initially show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner, State Excise, further action has been taken by the Principal Secretary on due authorisation by the Government. Mr Kale submitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the entries in the record of petitioner/company speak that denatured spirit of 1,10,200 liters was supplied to Rachana Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. By way of inspection, excise officials asked to the petitioner and its concerned officials to produce the details of transportation. However, they failed to produce the same. It was revealed during course of investigation that Rachana Chemical Pvt. Ltd., is not in existence as of today. Instead, the company is in the name of 'Rachana Eathers Indian Private Ltd.' The name of the company came to be changed long back in the year 2008- 2009. It shows how the petitioner/company has played fraud on the State by showing fictitious company. He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the petition. 14. It is necessary to see under what provisions the licence for distillation is issued to the petitioner/company. It is revealed that the licence for the distillation and DS-I & M-II are subsidiary to Form-I licence and their existence is fully depend upon the existence of Form-I licence. Licence Form-I is issued to the petitioner/company under Rule 3(3), 7(3) of the Maharashtra Distillation of Spirit and Manufacture of Potable Liquor Rules, 1966. It is revealed that the licence for the distillation and DS-I & M-II are subsidiary to Form-I licence and their existence is fully depend upon the existence of Form-I licence. Licence Form-I is issued to the petitioner/company under Rule 3(3), 7(3) of the Maharashtra Distillation of Spirit and Manufacture of Potable Liquor Rules, 1966. The said Form-I licence is issued for the purpose of constructing and working a distillery for the manufacture of spirit. The copies of licence are placed on record by the petitioner. It is found that licence is renewed from time to time and lastly, on 26/3/2019 for the period from 1/4/2019 to 31/3/2020. 15. Sec. 54 of the Act gives power to the authority to cancel or suspend the licence and permit on account of any breach of the terms and conditions of such licence, permit, pass or authorisation. Sec. 54 of the Act reads thus : "54. Power to cancel or suspend licences and permits. - (1) [The authority granting any licence, permit, pass or authorization under this Act may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel or suspend it,];- (a) if any fee or duty payable by the holder thereof is not duly paid; (b) if the purpose for which the licence, permit, pass or authorization was granted ceases to exist; (c) in the event of any breach by the holder of such licence, permit, pass or authorization or by his servant or by any one acting with his express or implied permission on his behalf of any of the terms or conditions of such licence, permit, pass or authorization or of any licence, permit, pass or authorization previously held by the holder; (d) if the holder thereof or any person in the employ of such holder or any person acting with his express or implied permission on his behalf is convicted of any offence under this Act or if the holder of the licence, permit, pass or authorization is convicted of any cognizable and non-bailable offence or [of any offence under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 or under the Drugs Act, 1940 or under the Bombay Drugs (Control) Act, 1952] or under the Indian Merchandise Marks Act, 1889, or of any offence punishable under Sec. 482 to 489 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, or of any offence punishable under Article 8 of the Schedule to sec. 167 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878; [(e) if the licence, permit, pass or authorization has been obtained through willful misrepresentation or fraud.] (2) Where a licence, permit, pass or authorization held by any person is cancelled, under sub-sec. (1), the authority aforesaid may cancel any other licence, permit, pass or authorization granted or deemed to have been granted to such person under this Act. [(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this sec. , the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or "cancel any licence, permit pass or authorization.]" 16. The question is, who is the competent authority to suspend or cancel the licence. As pointed out earlier, licence for constructing and working a distillery for the manufacture of spirit is issued to the petitioner/company in Form-I under Rule 3(3) and 7(3) of the Maharashtra Distillation of Spirit and Manufacture of Potable Liquor Rules, 1966. Clause No.32 of the licence given in Form-I is important which focus regarding authority to suspend or cancel the licence. Clause 32 of Form-I of the licence issued in Form-I under Rule 3(3) 7(3) of the abovesaid Rules reads thus : "32. This licence may be suspended or cancelled by the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of sec. 54 or 56 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949." 17. In this case, initially, proper legal recourse was taken by the State by issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner through the Commissioner, State Excise Department, M.S. Mumbai. The show-cause notice dtd. 7/12/2020 issued by respondent No.2 is on record at page No.94. The last three paragraphs of the show-cause notice are important which are reproduced as under : ..[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 18. Accordingly, reply was given by the petitioner dtd. 17/1/2021 addressed to the Commissioner, State Excise, M.S. Mumbai. 19. It is surprising to note that further action is initiated by the Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department including cancellation of licence of the petitioner. This Court, vide order dtd. 30/3/2022, has raised following important question of law : " On what provisions and under what Rules, respondent No.1/Principal Secretary, State Excise has passed the impugned order ?" 20. The State was directed to file its reply to answer this legal point apart form other factual aspects. 21. Mr Ganesh Dashrath Patil, Superintendent, State Excise, Ahmednagar has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of State which is sworn on 8/4/2022. The State was directed to file its reply to answer this legal point apart form other factual aspects. 21. Mr Ganesh Dashrath Patil, Superintendent, State Excise, Ahmednagar has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of State which is sworn on 8/4/2022. On going through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of State at the hands of Superintendent, State Excise, Ahmednagar, more particularly paragraph 25, following four lines are important on this legal aspect : " The government has inherent powers to issue all licences and said powers are delegated to various authorities working under government. The order is passed using inherent powers of government. ' 22. The reply given by the State referred above is found vague. No particular provision or Rule is mentioned under which powers are relegated to the Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department to invoke Sec. 54 of the Act for suspension or cancellation of the licence for constructing and working distillery for manufacture of spirit. When Rule 3(3) and 7(3) of the Maharashtra Distillation for Spirit and Manufacture of Potable Liquor Rules, 1966, Clause 32 specifically provide that the authority for suspension and cancellation of licence is given to the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 54 or 56 of the Act, how the Principal Secretary can cancel the licence without any authorisation or relegation of power in writing by the State Government. No Government order or administrative circular is placed on record empowering the Principal Secretary to State Excise to invoke provisions of Ss. 54 and 56 of the Act. It is serious legal lacuna and has direct impact on the very invocation of powers by the Principal Secretary, State Excise. 23. On going through the impugned order dtd. 10/2/2022 (page 125), it speaks that the Principal Secretary was authorised to conduct hearing of this case through video conferencing by Honourable Deputy Chief Minister. Unfortunately, no such written order is placed on record by the State when it poses very serious question regarding authorisation allegedly given to the Principal Secretary for conducting hearing of cancellation of licence of the petitioner. 24. It is pointed out by Mr R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that when the law or Regulations provide that the Commissioner is empowered to suspend or cancel the licence in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 54 or Sec. 56 of the Act, the Principal Secretary cannot exercise that jurisdiction. 24. It is pointed out by Mr R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that when the law or Regulations provide that the Commissioner is empowered to suspend or cancel the licence in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 54 or Sec. 56 of the Act, the Principal Secretary cannot exercise that jurisdiction. The order is passed without jurisdiction and it is nullity. Even though the Principal Secretary is on top and is higher official, does not get jurisdiction to decide the subject matter in absence of legal provisions. I found merit in the submission of Mr Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 25. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Nagayach and ors. (supra), it is held by the Honourable Supreme Court that statutory functionaries like Registrar or Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies functioning under the respective Co-operative Act must be above suspicion and function independently without external pressure. When an authority invested with the power purports to act on its own but in substance the power is exercised by external guidance or pressure, it would amount to non-exercise of power. The Registrars/Joint Registrars are expected to act in the best interest of society and its members in such situations, they have to act bona fide and within the four corners of the Statute. In the present case, Principal Secretary, State Excise seems to have acted on the basis of external guidance or pressure as observed earlier. 26. In case of Chandrika Jha Vs. State of Bihar and ors. (supra), it is held by the Honourable Supreme Court that neither the Chief Minister nor the Minister for Cooperation or Industries had the power to arrogate himself to statutory functions. Remaining citations referred by the learned Senior Counsel have no bearing with the facts of the case in hand. 27. Having regard to the above factual scenario, it is very much clear that the Principal Secretary, State Excise had no authority under the provisions of law or the Rules, more particularly, under the provisions of Sec. 54 or 56 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 to conduct the hearing of the case regarding suspension or cancellation of the licence. The whole exercise of the Principal Secretary, State Excise to conduct hearing in a case of cancellation of licence of the petitioner is found without jurisdiction. It is nothing but abuse of powers. The whole exercise of the Principal Secretary, State Excise to conduct hearing in a case of cancellation of licence of the petitioner is found without jurisdiction. It is nothing but abuse of powers. As pointed out earlier, the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Rules thereunder give authority to the Commissioner, State Excise for suspension or cancellation of the licence issued by the Government. Certainly, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 28. There is one more aspect, which needs attention. The Principal Secretary, State Excise has exercised the power of conducting hearing of a case regarding cancellation of the licence and thereby remedy of appeal provided under Sec. 137 of the Act has been taken away. The statutory right of the appeal provided to the petitioner is snatched away by the impugned order passed by the Principal Secretary, State Excise. If the impugned order would have been passed by the Commissioner, State Excise, the petitioner would have filed appeal before the State Government by taking aid of Sec. 137 of the Act. Thus statutory right of appeal is also infringed by passing of impugned order by the Principal Secretary, State Excise. 29. Having regard to the above reasons and discussion, the impugned order dtd. 10/2/2022 passed by respondent no.1/ Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in MPL-0621/P.K.81/State Excise-3 needs to be cracked down. ORDER (i) The Writ Petition stands allowed. (ii) The impugned order dtd. 10/2/2022 passed by respondent No.1/Principal Secretary, State Excise, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in MPL-0621/P.K.81/State Excise-3 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The petitioner shall deposit Rs.1.00 Crore with respondent No.2/Commissioner, State Excise Department, M.S. Mumbai within two weeks from today as an estimated revenue loss under protest. After depositing the said amount, the State Government/competent Authority shall regenerate the licence in favour of the petitioner/Company and permit the petitioner to run the distillery unit/plant on the same terms and conditions mentioned in the licence and determine exact revenue loss as per the Rules and Regulations framed under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. (iv) The respondent No.2/State Excise Department, M.S. Mumbai may take further line of action in view of Sec. 54 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and Rules framed thereunder in view of notice issued by him dtd. (iv) The respondent No.2/State Excise Department, M.S. Mumbai may take further line of action in view of Sec. 54 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and Rules framed thereunder in view of notice issued by him dtd. 7/12/2020, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and put quietus within three months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. (v) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (vi) No order as to costs. (vii) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.