THE DISTILLERS ASSOCIATION OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANR.

2023:BHC-AS:22638-DB
1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13720 OF 2017
M/s. Daund Sugar Pvt. Ltd., Through
Its Distillery Manager ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2018
M/s. Nsl Krishnaveni Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2018
M/s. Vijaynagar Sugar Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 405 OF 2019
M/s. Venkateshwara Power
Project Ltd. (distillery Div.) ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru. Prin.
Secretary, Home ( State Excise) Dept. And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 426 OF 2018
M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
Page 1 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 427 OF 2018

M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2018
M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 431 OF 2018
M/s. Sharayu Agro Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 466 OF 2018
M/s. E.i.d. Parry (india) Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary, And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 782 OF 2018
Baramati Taluka Sahakari Doodh
Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, Through
Its Authorised Representative ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1061 OF 2018
M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary and Ors. ...Respondents
Page 2 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2360 OF 2018

M/s. N.s. Enterprises Thr.its Prop.
Mr. Nitin Shivajirao Shinde ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr.
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1258 OF 2018
M/s. Appasaheb Nalawade Gadhinglaj
Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra , Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1257 OF 2018
M/s. Hermes Distillery Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2019
M/s. Vardhan Agro Processing Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru Prin.
Secretary, Home (state Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2445 OF 2018
Kn Resources Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra , Through
Its Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 3 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1832 OF 2018

M/s. Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra ,
Through Its Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3632 OF 2018
The Distillers Association Of
Maharashtra And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra , Through
Its Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2018
M/s. Shree Renuka Sugar Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2318 OF 2018
M/s. Jakraya Sugar Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary, And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2317 OF 2018
M/s. Shivamrut Doodh Utpadak
Sahakari Sangh Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 4 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2961 OF 2018

Jai Hind Feeds Through Mr. M.k. Jamdar, ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary, And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3419 OF 2019
M/s. Shri Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Mah. Thru
Principal Secty. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5459 OF 2018
M/s. Jakraya Sugar Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharshtra Through
Principal Sec., & ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4843 OF 2018
M/s. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary, And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3616 OF 2018
M/s. Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Its Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3166 OF 2018
Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 5 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3617 OF 2018

M/s. Kothari Sugars And Chemicals Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4019 OF 2023
Satyam Distilleries And Industries Pvt. Ltd ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr.
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3890 OF 2019
M/s. Utopian Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary ,
Home (state Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3891 OF 2019
M/s. Starchem Industries ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru Prin.
Secretary , Home (state Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4254 OF 2018
M/s. Indian Sugar Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4238 OF 2018
M/s. Shri Saikrupa Sugar And Allied Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal
Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 6 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4255 OF 2018

M/s. Calgara Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4880 OF 2018
M/s. Oaisis Alcohol Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4616 OF 2018
M/s. Kisan Agro Through Its Partner ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4881 OF 2018
M/s. Kamdhenu Agrovet Thorugh Its Partner ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4882 OF 2018
M/s. Kamdhenu Agrovet Thorugh Its Proprietor ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5535 OF 2019
M/s. Neha Trading Co. Through
Its Proprietor Shri. D.d. Khimani ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
The Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 7 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6432 OF 2018

M/s. Ravindra And Company Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3133 OF 2022
M/s. Siddhi Sugar And Allied Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Prin.
Secretary, Home (state Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9545 OF 2019
M/s. Swaraj India Agro Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Prin.
Secretary, Home (state Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9289 OF 2019
M/s. Dwarkadhish Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Prin.
Secretary, Home ( State Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7722 OF 2018
M/s. Shamanur Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3131 OF 2022
M/s. Harsco India Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Prin.
Secretary, Home (state Excise) Dept. And Anr. ...Respondents
Page 8 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3129 OF 2022

M/s. Bhalkeshwar Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Prin.
Secretary, Home (state Excise) Dept. And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3128 OF 2022
M/s. Nirani Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Prin.
Secretary, Home (state Excise) Dept. And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4176 OF 2003
Ashok Alco-chem Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9495 OF 2018
M/s. Shree Warna Sahakari Dudh Utpadak
Prakriya Sangh Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10858 OF 2018
M/s Rajmata Industries Thru Partner,
Mr. Ashok Damodar Survase ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru Principal Secretary,
Home (state Excise) Dept. And Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11279 OF 2018
M/s Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru Principal Secretary,
Home( State Excise) Dept. And Anr. ...Respondents
Page 9 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13386 OF 2018

M/s Aurangabad Distillery Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru Principal Secretary,
Home ( State Excise ) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11280 OF 2018
M/s. New Phaltan Sugar Works Distilleries Div. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11281 OF 2018
M/s Krantigrani Dr. G. D. Bapu Lad
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhant Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru Principal Secretary,
Home ( State Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13364 OF 2018
M/s. Jaywant Sugars Ltd. karad, ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru Principal Secretary,
Home ( State Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12198 OF 2017
M/s. Sagar Industries Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12211 OF 2017
M/s. Kolhapur Sagar Mills Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 10 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12202 OF 2017

M/s. Aurangabad Distillery Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12204 OF 2017
M/s. Baramati Agro Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12213 OF 2017
M/s. Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharshtra, Through
The Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12205 OF 2017
M/s. Deshbhakta Ratnapanna Kumbhar
Panchganga Ssk Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12398 OF 2017
M/s. Nira Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12421 OF 2017
M/s. Karmayogi Shankarrao Patil S.s.k. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 11 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12399 OF 2017

M/s. Indreshwar Sugar Mills Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12400 OF 2017
M/s. Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12677 OF 2017
M/s. Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12693 OF 2017
M/s. Fabtech Sugar Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12678 OF 2017
The Distillers Association Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12679 OF 2017
M/s. Loknete Baburao Patil Agro Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 12 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12680 OF 2017

M/s. Khandoba Distilleries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12681 OF 2017
M/s. Vithalrao Shinde S.S.K. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12682 OF 2017
The Distillers Association Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12936 OF 2017
M/s. Dalmia Bharat Sugar And Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary,
Home (state Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12934 OF 2017
M/s. Deccan Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra , Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2020
M/s. Atharv Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary
Home ( State Excies) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 13 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13105 OF 2017

M/s. Bhima S.s.k. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13107 OF 2017
M/s. Shri Makai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13108 OF 2017
M/s. Vijaynagar Sugar Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13230 OF 2017
M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13231 OF 2017
M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3113 OF 2020
M/s. Kpr Sugar Mill Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Prin.
Secretary, Home (state Excise) And Anr ...Respondents
Page 14 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13392 OF 2017

Shrigurumurti Exports Pvt Ltd. Through
Its Managing Direstor Shri. Prasad Uttamrao Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary,
Home Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13732 OF 2017
M/s. Manganga S.s.k. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal
Secretary Home (state Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13721 OF 2017
M/s. Shri Ambalika Sugar Pvt. Ltd. Through
Its Distillery Manager ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13544 OF 2017
M/s. Embio Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1612 OF 2021
Mysore Mercantile Co. Limited
Through Authorized Representative ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13463 OF 2017
Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Page 15 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13729 OF 2017

M/s. Imcola (exports) Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra , Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13730 OF 2017
M/s. Chandrashekhar Exports Private Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra , Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13731 OF 2017
M/s. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13847 OF 2017
Athani Sugar Ltd. Through
Its Execution Director Shri, Yogesh Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharasthra Through Principal
Secretary Home (state Excise) Dept. And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13906 OF 2017
M/s. Shri. Vidhnahar S.s.k Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary, And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13908 OF 2017
M/s. Ss Distrilleries Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Its Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 16 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14047 OF 2017

M/s. Laxmi Feeds And Foods ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14042 OF 2017
M/s. Betul Oil Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14055 OF 2017
Shri. Padmavati Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through The
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14056 OF 2017
M/s. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through The
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14057 OF 2017
M/s. R.m. Cattle Feed Industries ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
The Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 433 OF 2018
M/s. Bhairavnath Sugar Works Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
Page 17 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 432 OF 2018

M/s. Sun Impex Export And Import ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2163 OF 2018
Solapur Zillah Dudh Utpadak Va Prikriya Sangh
Cattle Feed Manufaturing Unit Through Its A.s. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1591 OF 2019
M/s. New Phaltan Sugar Works Distilleries Div. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its
Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14601 OF 2018
M/s. Integrated Service Point Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Its Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents

Adv. Joel Carlos for the petitioner in WP/13720/2017.
Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam a/w Mr. Prem Mhatre for Petitioner in
WP/2360/2018 and WP/4616/2018.
Mr Samir Kumbhakoni for Petitioner in WP/10858/2018.
Adv Austin Fernendes i/b Denzil D’melloa for Petitioner in
WP/13463/2017.
Mr Rahul P. Kasbekar a/w Mr. Swaroop Karade i/b Mr Surel S. Shah for
Petitioner in wP/3166/2018.
Page 18 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
Mr Sarang S. Aradhye a/w Ms Gauri Velankar a/w Ms. Shruti
Kothavade for Petitioner in WP/2163/2018.
Mr Prasannan S. Namboodiri a/w Mr Tejal Darekar a/w Mr Rishabh
Sinha for Petitioner inWP/13544/2017.
Mr. Shekhar Jagtap a/w. Sairuchita Chowdhary & Mr. Venkatesh
Shinde i/b. J. Shekhar & Co. in WP/782/2018.
Mr D.B. Savant a/w Mr Vinayak Salokhe a/w Ms Megha Jani a/w Ms
Sampada Khanolkar for Petitioner in WP/429/2018 a/w WP/430/2018
a/w WP/405/2019 a/w WP/430/2018 a/w WP/405/2019 a/w
WP/426/2018 a/w WP/427/2018 a/w WP/428/2018 a/w
WP/431/2018 a/w WP/466/2018 Adv. a/w WP/1061/2018 a/w
WP/1258/2018 a/w WP/1257/2018 a/w WP/2260/2019 a/w
WP/2445/2018 a/w WP/1832/2018 a/w WP/3632/2018 a/w
WP/1833/2018 a/w WP/2318/2018 a/w WP/2317/2018 a/w
WP/3419/2019 a/w WP/5459/2018 a/w WP/4843/2018 a/w
WP/3616/2018 a/w WP/3617/2018 a/w WP/3890/2019 a/w
WP/3891/2019 a/w WP/4254/2018 a/w WP/4238/2018 a/w
WP/4255/2018 a/w WP/4880/2018 a/w WP/4881/2018 a/w
WP/4882/2018 a/w WP/5535/2019 a/w WP/6432/2018 a/w
WP/3133/2022 a/w WP/9545/2019 a/w WP/9289/2019 a/w
WP/1612/2021 a/w WP/7722/2018 a/w WP/3131/2022 a/w
WP/3129/2022 a/w WP/3128/2022 a/w WP/4176/2003 a/w
WP/9495/2018 a/w WP/11279/2018 a/w WP/13386/2018 a/w WP/
11280/2018 a/w WP/11281/2018 a/w WP/13364/2018 a/w
WP/12198/2017 a/w WP/12211/2017 a/w WP/12202/2017 a/w
WP/12204/2017 a/w WP/4019/2023, WP/12213/2017 a/w
WP/12205/2017 a/w WP/12398/2017 a/w WP/12421/2017 a/w
WP/12399/2017 a/w WP/12400/2017 a/w WP/12677/2017 a/w
WP/12693/2017 a/w WP/12678/2017 a/w WP/12679/2017 a/w
WP/12680/2017 a/w WP/12681/2017,a/w WP/12682/2017 a/w
WP/12936/2017 a/w WP/12934/2017 a/w WP/2907/2020 a/w
WP/13105/2017 a/w WP/13107/2017 a/w WP/13108/2017 a/w
WP/13230/2017 a/w WP/13231/2017 a/w WP/3113/2020 a/w
WP/13732/2017 a/w WP/13721/2017 a/w WP/13729/2017 a/w
WP/13730/2017 a/w WP/13731/2017 a/w WP/13906/2017 a/w
WP/13908/2017 a/w WP/14047/2017 a/w WP/14055/2017 a/w
WP/14056/2017 a/w WP/14057/2017 a/w WP/433/2018 a/w
WP/432/2018 a/w WP/1591/2019 a/w WP/14601/2018.

Smt. S.D. Vyas, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for State
Mr Advait Sethna for Resp UOI in WP/12679/2017.
_______________________
Page 19 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 4 August, 2023
PRONOUNCED ON: 9 August, 2023
_______________________

JUDGMENT (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. This is a batch of petitions in which a common challenge has been
raised, they are hence being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners essentially have prayed for reliefs that Rule 19 of the
Bombay Molasses Rules, 1955 (for short “1955 Rules”) and the
circulars/notifications issued therein be declared to be ultra vires and
unconstitutional. There is a further prayer to assail notification dated 1
November, 2017 issued by the State Government, which is titled as Bombay
1
Mollasses (Amendment) Rules, 2017 *, by which Rule 19 has been amended in
regard to imposition of a levy of Rs.500/- per metric ton for issuance of the
permit under Rule 18 for a person desiring to transport molasses.
3. The challenge as mounted by the petitioners emerges from the
implementation and actions being resorted by the respondents-State under the
1955 Rules. These are rules which are framed by the State Government in
exercise of the powers conferred by Section 143 of the Bombay Prohibition
Act, 1949 and in supercession of the erstwhile Bombay Molasses Rules, 1947.
1 * subsequently amended to Re.1/- per metric ton by notification dated 19 June, 2020
Page 20 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
The rules defines “Factory” to mean a place where sugar or gur is manufactured

[Rule 2(1)(b)]. It defines “Licensed premises” to mean premises in respect of
which a license is granted under the said rules [Rule 2(1)(d)]. The term
“Licensee” is defined under Rule 2(1)(e) to mean a person holding a license in
Form M-I, M-II or M-III. The term “Producer of Molasses” is defined under
Rule 2(1)(f) to mean a person who is in charge of a factory where molasses is
produced in the process of manufacture of sugar or gur. Rule 3 provides for
“Possession and sale of molasses” and stipulates that any person who is a
producer of molasses and desires to possess and sell molasses shall make an
application to the Collector for a licence in that behalf. Rule 3-A provides for
“Renewal of License”. Rule 4 provides for license to be issued to a person,
other than a producer of molasses, who desires to possess and use molasses.
Rule 11 provides that no person shall sell molasses unless he is holding a
license in Form M-I or M-III. Rule 12 provides for Import of molasses. Rule
14 provides for Export of molasses and for obtaining a license for the same.
Rule 18 is a rule pertaining to transport of molasses and Rule 19, being the
relevant rule, provides for the procedure for grant of license and for payment of
fees. It is necessary to note Rules 18 and 19, as the entire controversy revolves
around these provisions, which reads thus:
“18. Transport –
Any person desiring to transport molasses, shall make an application
to the Collector or any other authorised officer under sub-section (3) of
Page 21 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
section 61 of the Act for a permit in that behalf. The application shall
contain the following particulars, namely :-

1. Name and address of the applicant;
2. Kind of the licence held in respect of molasses by the applicant and its
number and date;
3. Quantity of molasses permitted for possession at any one time under the
above licence (in quintals);
4. Balance of molasses on hand on the date of application (in quintals);
5. Quantity of molasses to be transported in (in quintals);
6. (a) Place from which molasses is to be transported;
(b) Place to which molasses is to be transported;
7. Name of the person authorised to transport molasses;
8. Name and address of the person from whom molasses will be obtained;
9. Route (state also the place from and to which transport of molasses will be
by road);
10. Period for which the permit is required.
19. (1) On receipt of an application under Rule 18, the Collector or the authorised
officer may make such inquiries as he deems necessary and if he is satisfied that
there is no objection to grant the permit applied for, he may grant a permit in Form
M-VI on payment of a fee at the rate of rupee one metric ton of molasses to be
transported).
(2) The permit shall be in four parts and shall be dealt with as under :-
Part I shall be kept on the record in the office of the Collector granting the
permit.
Part II shall be kept by the person supplying molasses.
Part III shall be handed over to the applicant for sending with the consignment
and for record thereafter with his accounts.
Part IV shall be forwarded to the Prohibition and Excise Officer of the place to
which molasses are to be transported.”
4. Thus, Rule 19(1) provides that o n receipt of an application under Rule
18, the Collector or the authorised officer may make such inquiries as he deems
necessary, and if he is satisfied that there is no objection to grant the permit
applied for, he may grant a permit in Form M-VI on payment of a fee at the
rate of rupee one metric ton of molasses to be transported.
Page 22 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
5. At this stage, it needs to be noted that large number of Writ Petitions

were filed some time in the year 2001 challenging the legality and validity of
Rule 19 of the 1955 Rules. These petitions were filed by producers,
manufacturers, users, sellers, purchasers etc. of molasses/rectified spirit/extra
neutral alcohol/silent spirit/denatured spirit and by persons who hold various
licences for production/manufacture/possession/use /storage/sale/purchase etc.
of molasses. Some of the petitioners in the said batch of petitions were owners
of sugar factories/distilleries and produce/manufacture molasses/rectified spirit/
extra neutral alcohol/silent spirit/denatured spirit. Some of the petitioners
were “captive users”, in whose case there were hardly any element of transport
of such molasses/materials falling under the 1955 Rules, and in case of these
persons who fell under the category of captive users, the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of VAM Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra &
2
Ors. had allowed the petitions and had set aside the imposition of
transportation fees, observing that the rectified spirit/industrial alcohol
produced in the distillery is first denatured as per the method approved by the
excise authorities and denatured alcohol which is unfit for human consumption
can be used only for industrial purpose to produce chemicals such as
acetic acid, acetic anhydride, vinyl acetate etc. and is carried through
“closed and sealed pipes”, directly to its main chemical plants for manufacture
2 Writ Petition No. 2275 of 2000
Page 23 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
of chemicals, which ensured that the spirit was manfactured in the distillery

cannot be diverted at all. The Court also agreed with the petitioner that the
State Government has no legislative competence to regulate denatured spirit
which was totally unfit for human consumption. The decision of the Division
Bench in M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) was carried in appeal by
the State Government before the Supreme in the proceedings of Civil Appeal
Nos. 7126 of 2001. The Supreme Court dismissed the State Government’s
appeal by order dated 13 March, 2008.
6. On the backdrop of the decision of Division Bench in VAM Organic
Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench had taken up adjudication of the
said batch of petitions in the proceedings of Sahakar Maharashi Shankarrao
Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Solapur vs. State of Maharashtra
3
& Ors. , on which the Division Bench of this Court rendered a decision dated
6 May, 2011. In such decision, the Division Bench considered not only the
cases falling under Rule 19 in respect of captive users but also a bunch of
petitions which fell under the category of non-captive users. The Division
Bench considering the decision in M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. (supra),
4
decision of Supreme Court in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
,
5
decision in Bihar Distillery & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. and several other
3 2011(3) ALL MR 852
4 (1990) 1 SCC 109
5 1997(2) SCC 727
Page 24 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
decisions, observed that the Union has exclusive power to legislate and impose

taxes in respect of all non-potable alcohols, namely, molasses/rectified
spirit/extra neutral alcohol/silent spirit/denatured spirit etc. and the State
Government has exclusive power to legislate and impose taxes in respect of
potable alcohol viz., country liquor, Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) etc.
It was observed that i nsofar as the power of the State Government to regulate
molasses/rectified spirit/extra neutral alcohol/silent spirit/denatured spirit is
concerned, the position was that the State's power was limited to (i) the
regulation of molasses/rectified spirit/extra neutral alcohol/silent spirit/
denatured spirit etc. for the limited purpose of preventing its use as alcoholic
liquor for human consumption, and in regard to (ii) the charging of fee based
on quid pro quo for the services rendered. Applying the test of quid pro quo,
the Division Bench held that as the State Government was already recovering
supervision charges for the escorts comprising constabulary staff of the excise
department en route transport of the molasses/rectified spirit/extra neutral
alcohol/silent spirit/denatured spirit, it did not find any further and/or
additional service, being rendered by the State Government in connection with
the transport of the said products, so as to justify the levy of transport fee on
non-captive users which would meet the requirement of quid pro quo. The
Court was thus of the view that a transport fee imposed by the State
Government under Rule 19, even in the case of the petitioners, who are non-
Page 25 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
captive users, does not commensurate to the services rendered and the

imposition of transport fee on the non-captive cannot be sustained and was
required to be set aside. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are
required to be noted, which reads thus:
“31. From an analysis of the aforementioned decisions therefore, the
following position can now be said to have been well settled - that the
Union has exclusive power to legislate and impose taxes in respect of all
non-potable alcohols viz: molasses/rectified spirit/extra neutral
alcohol/silent spirit/ denatured spirit, etc. and the State Government has
exclusive power to legislate and impose taxes in' respect of potable alcohol
viz: Country Liquor, Indian Made For^eign Liquor (IMFL), etc. Insofar as
the power of the State Governnrjent to regulate molasses/rectified
spirit/extra neutral alcohol/silent ^pirit/denatured spirit is concerned, the
following is the position - the State's power is limited to (i) the regulation
of molasses/rectified spirit/extra neutral alcohol/silent spirit/ denatured
spirit etc. for the limited purpose of preventing its use as alcoholic liquor
for human consumption, and (ii) the charging of fee based on quid pro
quo for the services rendered.
46. It is pertinent to note that the assertions made on behalf of the State
Government in their Affidavit in Reply filed in the case of M/s. Vam
Organic Chemical Ltd. (supra) (which is also annexed to the counter
affidavit filed in the present W.P. No.2922 of 2001), that there were
several other services rendered including administrative services, not only
by the excise authorities, but also other officials of the State Government
and that services rendered had a correlation with the transport fee charged
was not accepted by the Division Bench of this Court. The Division
Bench held that there was absolutely no material to indicate that any
services rendered by the State Government in the case of the petitioner
therein who was a captive user. In the present petitions also the same
assertions have been made in the counter affidavit of the state
Government that there were several other services rendered not only by
the excise authorities but also other officials of the State Government and
that the services rendered had a co-relation with the transport fee charged.
We are afraid that once that argument has been rejected by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd.,
which was affirmed by the Apex Court, it is really not open for the State
Government to raise the same assertions again in the present petitions. It
was incumbent on the State Government to point out what were the
additional expenses in case of non-captive users, incurred by the State
Government in connection with the services rendered en route transport
when the molasses/rectified spirit/extra neutral if alcohol/silent
spirit/denatured spirit was being transported from the origin to the
destination, which the State Government has not done. As stated earlier, it
Page 26 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
is an admitted position that en route transport also the State Government
deploys excise staff who accompany the tanker/vehicle in which the
molasses/rectified spirit/extra neutral alcohol/silent spirit/denatured spirit
is being transported so as to ensure that the same is not diverted for
potable purposes. It Is also an admitted position that the State
Government is also recovering supervision charges as contemplated under
Section 58A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, of such excise staff
who accompany the tanker/vehicle so as to supervise the transport of the
molasses/rectified spirit/extra neutral alcohol/silent spirit. Considering the
above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention on
behalf of the State Government that over and above the supervision
charges which includes the cost for the excise staff who accompany the
tanker/vehicle en route transport, which the petitioners are already paying,
any further expenses are being incurred by the State Government in that
behalf. In any event no material in that behalf has been placed on record.
Prima facie, we think this would in a sense amount to double levy of fee
In respect of the same services rendered in connection with the transport.
In the circumstances, therefore, we are of the view that, inasmuch as the
State Government is already recovering supervision charges for the escorts
comprising constabulary staff of the excise department en route transport
of the molasses/rectified spirit/extra neutral alcohol/silent spirit/denatured
spirit, we do not find any further and/or additional service being rendered
by the State Government in connection with the transport of the said
products, so as to justify the levy of transport fee on non-captive users
which would meet the requirement of quid pro quo.

47. In light of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, the transport fee
imposed by the State Government, even in the case of petitioners who are
non-captive users, does not commensurate to the services rendered and
the imposition of transport fee on the petitioners who are non-captive
cannot be sustained and required to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
It may be mentioned here that we have, in paragraph 21 hereinabove,
already set aside the imposition of transport fee in case of petitioners who
are captive users.
48. In the result, the petitions succeed. Rule made absolute in all the
petitions in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
(emphasis supplied)
7. The case of the petitioners is that despite the authoritative
pronouncement of the Division Bench declaring that the State Government
would not have any authority to charge fees under Rule 19 for the captive and
non-captive users as held in Sahakar Maharashi Shankarrao Mohite Patil
Page 27 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana’s case (supra), the State Government issued a

impugned notification dated 1 November, 2017 being titled as ‘Bombay
Molasses Amendment Rules, 2017’ by which the 1955 Rules inter alia in
regard to Rule 19 came to be amended so as to prescribe a fee of Rs.500/- per
metric ton replacing Re. 1/- per metric ton. The said notification is required to
be noted, which reads thus:
NOTIFICATION
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Marg,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Mumbai-400 032.
st
Dated : 1 November 2017
No.MPL-0717 C.R.214(2)/EXC-3. Whereas, the Government of
Maharashtra considers that the following rule further to amend the Bombay
Molasses Rules, 1955, shall be brought in to force at once, and therefore, the
rules shall be made without previous publication as provided by the proviso
to sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949
(XXV of 1949).
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-
section (2) of section 143 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (XXV to
1949) and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf the Government of
Maharashtra hereby makes the following rules, as follows, namely :-
1) These rule may be called the Bombay Molasses (Amendment)
Rules, 2017.
2) In rule 13 of the Bombay Molasses Rules, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as “the principal rules”), in sub-rule (1) for the word “of rupees
fifty” the words “of rupees five thousand” shall be substituted.
3) In rule 15 of the principal Rules, in sub-rule (1) for the words “of
rupees fifty” of words “of rupees five thousand” shall be substituted.
4) In rule of 19 of the principal Rules, in sub-rule (1).
(a) for the word “at the rate of rupees one per metric ton
molasses to be transported” the words “at the rate of rupees five
hundred per metric ton of molasses to be transported” shall be
substituted.
(b) After sub rule (1), the following proviso shall be added,
Page 28 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
namely :-
“Provided that on import and export of molasses an additional fee
of rupees five hundred per metric ton will be applicable as
transport fee for M-VI Permit”.

By order and in the name of the
Government of Maharashtra
Sd/-
(P. H. Wagde)
Joint Secretary to Government”
(emphasis supplied)
8. It is on the above premise, being aggrieved by the aforesaid notification,
these petitions came to be filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:
“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ in the nature of
mandamus and/or writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of quo qarranto
or any appropriate writ or orders calling for papers and proceedings
relating to recovery of fees for issue of transport pass under Rule 19 of the
Bombay Molasses Rules 1955 and after scrutinizing the validity and
legality thereof be pleased to hold and declare the said Rule and
circulars/notifications issued thereunder as ultra vires and unconstitutional
and the said Rule be quashed and struck down;
(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ in the nature of
mandamus and/or writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of quo warranto
or any appropriate writ or orders calling for papers and proceedings
relating to the notification dated 1.11.2017 issued by the Respondent No.1
termed as Bombay Mollasses (Amendment ) Rules 2017 and after
scrutinizing the validity and legality of thereof be pleased to hold and
declare the said notification to the extent of amending Rule 19 as ultra
vires and unconstitutional and the said Rule to that extent be quashed and
struck down;
(c) pending the hearing final disposal of the petition, the Respondents,
their officers, employees or anybody claiming through them, be restrained
from recovering any fee for issue of transport pass under Rule 19 of the
Bombay Molasses Rules, 1955;
(d) pending the hearing final disposal of the petition this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and effect of the
notification dated 1.11.2017 issued by the Respondent no. 1 termed as
Bombay Mollasses (Amendment) Rules 2017 and be pleased to restrain
the Respondents, their officers, employees or anybody claiming through
them from recovering any fee in pursuance thereof.”
Page 29 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
9. However, peculiarly during the pendency of these petitions, the State

Government issued a further notification dated 19 June, 2020 whereby Rule
19 again came to be amended to restore the levy of fees of Re. 1/- per metric
ton by revoking the levy of Rs.500/- as undertaken by amendment notification
dated 1 November, 2017 as noted hereinabove. The notification dated 19
June, 2020 reads thus:
HOME DEPARTMENT
Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
dated the 19th June 2020.
NOTIFICATION
MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT.
No. MPL-0717/C.R. 214 (Part-1)/Exc-3 – Whereas, the
Government of Maharashtra considers that the following rules further to
amend the Bombay Molasses Rules, 1955 shall be brought into force at
once, and therefore, the rules shall be made without previous publication
as provided by the proviso to sub-section(3) of section 143 of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act (XXV of 1949J;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of
sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act (XXV of
1949) and of other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Government of
Maharashtra hereby, makes the fallowing rules, as follows, namely -
1. These rules may be called the Bombay Molasses (Amendment)
Rules, 2020.
2. In rule 13 of the Bombay Molasses Rules, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as “the principal Rules"}, in sub-rule (1), for the words
"of rupees fie thousand" the words “of rupees fifty" shall be
substituted.
3. In rule 16 of the principal Rules, in sub-rule (1), for the words
"of rupees five thousand" the words "of rupees fifty” shall be
substituted.
4. In rule l9 of the principal Rules, in sub-rule (1), —
Page 30 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
(a) for the words "at the rate of rupees five hundred per metric
ton of molassas to be transported" the words "at the rate of
rupees one per metric ton of molasses to be transported” shall
be substituted;

b) proviso shall be deleted.
By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra
VALSA NAIR SINGH
Principal Secretary to Government”
10. In view of the said notification being issued, the petitioners contended
that the State Government would not have jurisdiction and authority to levy
fees even of Re. 1/- per metric ton and prayed for amendment of the petitions
so as to assail the notification dated 19 June, 2020. In such context, the
petitioners contend that the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. VAM
Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and Sahakar Maharashi Shankarrao Mohite
Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra) had categorically held that the
State Government had no authority to levy such fees under Rule 19 in respect
of captive and non-captive users and hence it was patently illegal for the State
Government to issue the said notification dated 19 June, 2020 and continue to
insist that the State Government is empowered to charge a fees of Re. 1/- per
metric ton of transportation of molasses. Thus, the additional prayer of the
petitioners is to assail the notification dated 19 June, 2020 came to be
incorporated that the said notification be quashed and set aside. The
additional prayers as incorporated by the petitioners read thus:
Page 31 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
“(b1) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ in the nature of
mandamus and/or writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of quo warranto
or any appropriate writ or orders calling for papers and proceedings
relating to the notification dated 16.6.2020 issued by the Respondent no.
1 termed as Bombay Mollasses (Amendment ) Rules 2020 and after
scrutinizing the validity and legality of thereof be pleased to hold and
declare the said notification to the extent of amending Rule 19 as ultra
vires and unconstitutional and the said Rule to that extent be quashed and
struck down;

(b2) pending the hearing final disposal of the petition this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and effect of the
notification dated 19.6.2020 issued by the Respondent no. 1 termed as
Bombay Mollasses (Amendment) Rules 2020 and be pleased to restrain
the Respondents, their officers, employees or anybody claiming through
them from recovering any fee in pursuance thereof.”

11. On the above backdrop, the proceedings are before us today.
12. On behalf of the State Government, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed
in lead Writ Petition No. 13720 of 2017 justifying the levy of such fees. The
affidavit sets out the historical conspectus. However, what is contended is that
the impugned levy of Re. 1/- per metric ton is not excessive and hence it meets
the requirement of quid pro quo. Paragraph 20 of the affidavit justifies the
levy of said fee on the ground that apart from issuance of transport permit, the
State Excise department also regulates activities relating to potable liquors,
however, it is not possible to state as to how much of the expenditure is
incurred in regulation of the trade in potable alcohol. It is contended that out
of total quantity of rectified spirit produced in the State, about 65% is allotted
for non-potable purpose and remaining 35% is allotted for potable purpose
and hence substantial part of the duties of the State Excise department is for
Page 32 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
regulation of activities in respect of industrial alcohol and molasses. It is also

contended that expenditure is also incurred on the pay and other expenses of
authorities like the Collector, officers of the Industries department, Food and
Drugs Department, Animal Husbandry department, police department and the
Director of Forensic Science Laboratories and their staff who also render
services in the regulation and expenditure incurred in this regard being not
included in the budget of the State Excise department. The relevant extract of
the affidavit is required to be noted, which reads thus:
“20. It is submitted that, the impugned levy of rupee one per metric
ton is not excessive and it meets the requirement of quid pro quo as is
being submitted below.
(I) Fee of rupee one per ton of molasses is levied under Rule 19 of
the 1955 Rules for issuance of Transport Permit in Form; M- VI.
Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure H is a copy of Form M- VI
permit for transport of Molasses From the sugar factory to the
purchaser’s place.
(II) Apart from issuance of Transport Permit, the State Excise
department also regulates activities relating to potable liquors, however
It is not possible to state as to how much of the expenditure is incurred
in the regulations of trade in potable alcohol. For example, a Sub-
Inspector posted at a Taluka supervises the activities in the potable
liquor shops as well as activities of users of and dealers in industrial
alcohol, molasses in his area. He visits for inspection at potable liquor
shops as well as visits for inspection at places of business of say those
manufacturing chemicals or preparations like French polish from
denatured spirit, wholesalers, retailers and also visits doctors,
dispensaries, hospitals, schools and colleges for assessing requirements
of industrial alcohol, signs requisitions, grants transport passes and
carries out other various duties mentioned above. He also visits sugar
factories for inspection/verification which do not have a distillery.
(III) It is submitted that, it is not possible to demonstrate as to how
much of the expenditure is incurred on the establishment of the Sub-
Inspector in the regulation of trade in industrial alcohol and how much
in the regulation of trade in potable alcohol. Same is the position in
Page 33 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
respect of services rendered by a higher officer and the employees of
the state Excise Department.

(IV) It is submitted that out of total quantity of rectified spirit
produced in the State, about 65% is allotted for non-potable purpose
and remaining 35% is allotted for potable purpose. Thus, it is seen that
substantial part of the duties of the State Excise department is for
regulation of activities in respect of industrial alcohol and molasses.
(V) It is submitted that expenditure is also incurred on the pay and
other expenses of authorities like the Collector, officers of the
Industries department, Food and Drugs department, Animal
Husbandry department, police department and the Director of
Forensic Science Laboratories etc. and their staff who also render
services in the regulation and expenditure incurred in this regard is not
included in the budget of the State Excise department, however, the
fact remains that services are definitely rendered to the licenses by
these officers and their staff and some expenses are therefore incurred
by the State. It is extremely difficult or impossible to determine as to
what amounts are spent on the expenses incurred on the aforesaid
personnel. It is therefore submitted that the contention of the
petitioners that the levy is excessive as there is no quid pro quo, is
without any merit.”
13. The affidavit also refers to two decisions of the Supreme Court, firstly in
the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. TVL, South Indian Sugar Mills Association
6 7
& Ors. and in Kalyan Chemicals vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. to
submit that the levy of fee of Re. 1/- per metric ton would be justified.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners in assailing Rule 19 and the
impugned notifications would contend that the State Government would not
have any authority whatsoever to levy any fee qua the activities of the
petitioners, as the same has been declared to be illegal by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) as also in
6 2015 AIR SCW 5011
7 (2015) 13 SCC 761
Page 34 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

(supra) . It is submitted that despite this Court having held that such levy as
illegal in case of M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and Sahakar
Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra), the
State Government has persisted in imposing such levy under Rule 19 of the
1955 Rules. It is submitted that in fact the Division Bench in Sahakar
Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra) has
clearly observed in paragraph 46 that there was absolutely no material to
indicate that any services were rendered by the State Government in the case of
captive user and a similar contention of service being rendered by other
departments, was raised in such case which had no nexus and/or any relation
whatever to the transport fees as charged. It is contended that the Division
Bench noted that in M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra), once the
argument of the State Government on such counts was rejected by the Division
Bench and which was also affirmed by the Apex Court, it was not open for the
State Government to raise the same assertions. It is the petitioners’ contention
that despite such observations, the State Government has persisted on such
levy as challenged in the present proceedings. It is their submission that the
issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Division bench in Sahakar
Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra) and
Page 35 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
accordingly, the petitions are required to be allowed in terms of the said

decision.
15. On the other hand, Ms. Vyas, learned AGP would justify the levy
referring to the reply affidavit. She would primarily submit that the amount of
Re. 1/- per metric ton being charged under Rule 19 as transport fee is a
reasonable amount and hence, considering the decision of the Supreme Court
in Kalyan Chemicals (supra) , the doctrine of quid pro quo ought not to be
applied.
16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the
record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
17. At the outset, we may observe that this is not the first time the
controversy under Rule 19 has reached this Court. The first occasion when the
controversy reached this Court was in the proceedings of M/s. VAM Organics
Chemicals Ltd. (supra), which was at the behest of captive users. In the said
decision, the Division Bench of this Court categorically held that it was not
open for the State Government to levy any fee under Rule 19, as there were no
services rendered by the State Government in the case of said petitioner, who
was a captive user. We have noted in detail as to what was held by the Division
Bench in interpreting Rule 19 in M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra).
Page 36 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
The decision of this Court in M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. was affirmed

by the Supreme Court in the State’s appeal being dismissed.
18. The second occasion when the controversy again reached this Court was
in the case of batch of petitions in Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra), wherein not only the issue of captive
users was again required to be revisited, as the State Government, despite the
decision of the Division Bench in M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. and as
confirmed by the Supreme Court, insisted for levy of Rs.500/- per metric ton
under Rule 19 by notification dated 1 November, 2017, which has given rise to
the present batch of petitions, which came to be confined to Re. 1/- per metric
ton by the subsequent notification dated 19 June, 2020 as impugned.
19. Thus the insistence of the State Government, however was not restricted
merely to levy of Re. 1/- per metric ton as it stood, when two Division Benches
of this Court adjudicated against the State Government in M/s. VAM Organics
Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra), but during the pendency of the present
petitions, by further notification dated 1 November, 2017, the State
Government amended Rule 19 to substitute the fee of Re. 1/- per metric ton
by Rs.500/- per metric ton.
Page 37 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
20. In our opinion, considering the decision of the Division Bench of this

Court in these two decisions, namely, M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd.
(supra) and Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd. (supra), it was not permissible for the State Government to issue
notification dated 1 November, 2017 to enhance the levy of fee from Re.1/- per
metric ton to Rs.500/- per metric ton. This more particularly that even the
levy of Rs.1/- per metric ton was found to be illegal in the said decisions of this
Court.
21. It is quite surprising that when the decision in M/s. VAM Organics
Chemicals Ltd. (supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the State
Government’s appeal being dismissed as also there being no stay on the
subsequent decision in Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra), it was highly unreasonable for the State
Government to issue notification dated 1 November, 2017.
22. It, however, appears that the State Government in its wisdom considered
it appropriate to revoke the notification dated 1 November, 2017 by
subsequent notification dated 19 June, 2020 by deleting levy at Rs.500/- per
metric ton as inserted by amendment to Rule 19 by notification dated 1
November, 2017 and restore the same to Re. 1/- per metric ton, which is also
Page 38 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
subject matter of challenge before us by the amendment carried out to the

petitions.
23. In such context, we may observe that there is much substance in the
contentions of the petitioners that even the subsequent notification dated 19
June, 2020 would not sustain the test of the said notification and/or levy of the
fees prescribed by it being valid in law, considering the decisions of this Court
in M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and Sahakar Maharshi
Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra), which are
valid and subsisting on the State Government. We are of the clear opinion that
considering the observations of this Court in the said decisions, it was not
permissible for the State Government to levy fee of even Re. 1/- per metric ton,
when inter alia in respect of supervision charges essential for maintaining the
regulatory control under the Bombay Prohibition Act, already statutory fees are
being charged and paid by the licencees as observed by the Division Bench in
Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
(supra). Thus, there was no warrant whatsoever for charging transport fee at
Re. 1/- per metric ton for the captive and non-captive users in the absence of
Rule 19 itself being not attracted in the case of the petitioners.
24. We are in fact quite surprised when the State Government has attempted
to justify such levy on the grounds which are totally alien and not relevant in
Page 39 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
the context of 1955 Rules. Similar was the contention and argument before

the Division Bench even in the case of Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite
Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra), when in the counter affidavit filed
therein, the State Government had taken a stand that there were several other
services rendered not only by the excise authorities but also other officials of
the State Government and that the services rendered in that regard were related
to the transport fee as being charged. Thus the stand of the State Government
in the present proceedings is identical to what was urged in the case of Sahakar
Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra), and
which was rejected by the Division Bench to have any relevance in the context
of Rule 19. We are thus not inclined to accept the contentions as urged by the
State Government in the reply affidavit and as argued by Ms. Vyas.
25. We are thus of the clear opinion that the present petitions are squarely
covered by two decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and Sahakar Maharshi
Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra). Thus, the
State Government would not have any authority to levy transport fees in
respect of captive and non-captive users, being the categories in which the
present petitions fall to impose any levy under Rule 19 of the 1955 Rules.
Page 40 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
26. Insofar as reliance placed by Ms. Vyas on the decision of the Supreme

Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. TVL, South Indian Sugar Mills
Association & Ors. (supra) is concerned, in our opinion, the same would not
assist the respondent-State inasmuch as in the said case, the Court was
concerned with administrative fees being demanded at Re.1/- per bulk litre of
industrial alcohol. In such case, the respondents had earlier unsuccessfully
imposed fee of 50 paise per bulk litre of industrial alcohol, when the challenge
was primarily predicated on the legislative competence of the State of Tamil
Nadu to make that demand. The challenge was to Rule 5-A of the Tamil Nadu
Distillery Rules introduced by notification dated 4 June, 1990 and the
amendment to the said Rule dated 12 April, 2000. The learned Single Judge
of the Madras High Court following the decision of the Seven-Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) had concluded
the conundrum. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the
subject impost was in pith and substance, an endeavour to raise revenues for
the States. It was observed that the principle of quid pro quo governs the
quantification of the service rendered, but not necessarily with mathematical
exactitude and that it was necessary that a reasonable relationship between the
collection and the services rendered must be evident. The petition was
accordingly was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge making it legal for
the State to impose and collect only 50 paise per bulk litre. The decision of the
Page 41 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
learned Single Judge was carried in appeal before the Division Bench. The

Division Bench, however, did not approve of the State Government collecting
such amounts even at the rate of 50 paise per bulk litre, as it was of the opinion
that the collection by the State Government by way of administrative service
fee recovered even at the rate of 50 paise per bulk litre corresponded to
approximately 60% of the total expenditure of the Excise Department and
accordingly, it was held that such collection was excessive. It is in such context,
the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Division Bench holding
that so long as expenses were incurred by the State Government in ensuring
that industrial alcohol is not used as potable alcohol, recovery thereof shall be
permissible. The Supreme Court observed that there was no justification for
the State or its Excise Department to collect charges at the rate of Re.1/- after it
had been quashed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, if these are the facts, we
are surprised as to how these decisions would assist the State Government in
the present case. In fact the judgment supports the case of the petitioners and
totally militates against the stand of the State Government supporting the levy.
27. Insofar as the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chemicals
(supra) is concerned, the decision would not support the State Government
inasmuch as the Supreme Court has reiterated the law as laid down and
discussed in the case of TVL, South Indian Sugar Mills Association (supra).
Page 42 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
28. We may observe that in the present case there is no material whatsoever

as brought on record by the State Government to justify that the levy under
Rule 19 under impugned notifications dated 1 November, 2017 and 19 June,
2020 is for the purpose of ensuring that the materials falling within the
purview of 1955 Rules and subject matter of levy on the principle of quid pro
quo as accepted in the case of M/s. VAM Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra),
Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
(supra) can in any manner be justified. Any levy which fails the test as
recognized in these decisions would be required to be held to be illegal. We,
accordingly, allow these petitions in terms of following order:
O R D E R
(i) It is held that the challenge as raised by the petitioners in
the present proceedings is squarely covered by the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. VAM Organics
Chemicals Ltd. (supra) as confirmed by the Supreme Court in
the proceedings of Appeal No. 7126 of 2001 and in the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in Sahakar Maharshi
Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra).
Page 43 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::

1.WP2360_2018 & ORS. JUDGMENT.DOC
(ii) The respondent/State has no authority in law to demand

and recover fee from the petitioners under notifications dated 1
November, 2017 and 19 June, 2020.
(iii) If any amounts are collected under such notifications, the
same be refunded to the petitioners within a period of ten weeks
from today, for which the petitioners are permitted to make
refund applications.
29. The petitions stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)
Page 44 of 44
9 August, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:05:05 :::