MANISH S. PARDASANI (M/S WINE KORNDER) ETC. ETC. versus INSPECTOR STATE EXCISE, P-1, DIVISION, MUMBAI (SUBURBS) & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 07-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
MANISH S. PARDASANI
(M/S WINE KORNDER) ETC. ETC.
v.
INSPECTOR STATE EXCISE, P-1, DIVISION,
 MUMBAI (SUBURBS) & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 126-156 of  2019)
JANUARY 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Administrative Law:
Bias – FIR against appellants (holders of licence for selling
liquor) – For commission of offences under Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, 1949 – Sealing of  liquor shops of the licencees –
Licencing authority by interim order directed de-sealing – The
appellate authority (Commissioner State Excise) stayed the order of
de-sealing –  Thereafter, Licencing authority, by final order directed
the licencees to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compounding fee – The appellate
authority ex-parte stayed the operation of final order –  Writ petition
by licencees – High Court quashed the order of sealing and also
the exparte stay order of the appellate authority and directed the
appellate authority to decide the case on merit –  High Court also
made adverse remarks against the appellate authority –  Appeal by
the licencees taking the plea that in view of the adverse remarks
against the appellate authority High Court should have transferred
the case to another appellate authority – Appeal also filed by
appellate authority seeking expunction of adverse remarks – Held:
Licencees have failed to make out any case of bias against the
appellate authority – Therefore, there is no justification in
transferring the case to another appellate authority – The appeals
of licencees dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- –  Adverse remarks
and strictures against the appellate authority were unnecessary in
the facts of the present case, nor were they germane for deciding
the lis between parties – The remarks are expunged and stand deleted
from records.
Bias – Allegation of – Against quasi-judicial authority –
Permissibility – Held: Plea of alleged bias is permissible in law to
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 312
312
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
impugn the action/order of quasi-judicial authority – However, such
plea has to be founded on substantial material – If the lis can be
decided on other legal grounds, such plea should not be entertained
– Every adverse order passed against a litigant is injurious to a
losing party – However, that does not give a right to attack the
adverse order by attributing bias against the authority.
Jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction of writ court – Held: Writ Court does not hold
inquiry on disputed facts.
Adverse Remarks/Strictures:
Adverse remarks by higher judiciary – Against judicial/
administrative officer while examining their action/order impugned
in the judicial proceedings – Held: Higher judiciary must avoid as
far as possible from making such remarks.
Judgment/Order:
Stay of order in anticipation – Propriety of – High Court while
disposing of writ petition, directed appellate authority to decide the
appeals on merit – Also directed that if the appellate authority passed
the order adverse to the writ petitioners, such orders were not to
take effect for a particular period – Held: A Court can stay or
quash only these orders which are impugned in the lis before it  –
Court cannot stay or quash the orders in anticipation – Such order
is interference with the judicial independence of an appellate
authority – It is only after the order is passed, the aggrieved has
legal right to take recourse to legal remedy.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has rightly declined to transfer
the pending appeals from the Commissioner State Excise to any
other Commissioner State Excise or any other competent
appellate authority under the Act. [Para 36][322-B]
1.2 The reasoning assigned by the Courts to strike down
or uphold the action/order impugned in the lis must always be
confined to legal grounds, and none else. There was, therefore,
no need nor any occasion, much less necessity for the High Court
MANISH S. PARDASANI (M/S WINE KORNDER) ETC. ETC. v.
INSPECTOR STATE EXCISE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
to have travelled beyond their legal reasoning assigned and made
adverse remarks, and pass strictures against the appellate
authority i.e. the Commissioner State Excise and direct her to
act and behave in a particular manner in discharge of her duties
and dealing with the case. [Para 37][322-C-D]
1.3 The Commissioner State Excise being an appellate
authority under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 had
exercised the appellate pow

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.