"Abuse of process of law": Bombay High Court imposes ₹ 10k costs on petitioner who challenged award of liquor license

The Bombay High Court recently imposed costs of ₹10,000 on a petitioner who challenged the opening of a country liquor bar in his neighbourhood, opining that the petition constituted an abuse of the legal process. [Rahul Giridhar Pathade vs The Collector of Nashik and Ors.].Justice Milind N Jadhav observed that although the petition alleged a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights, it did not illustrate how these rights were violated. Rather, the business owner's right to carry on his trade and business by following due process of law was being violated by the petitioner, the Court said. ."... perusal of record clearly reveals that the manner in which the Petition is drafted is an abuse of the process of law. It is seen that the Petition proceeds on the basis of the violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, Petitioner has not given any event or incident as to how his fundamental rights are violated. On the contrary the Respondent No. 3’s right under article 19(1)(g) to carry on trade and business by following the due process of law is in fact hampered on the allegations of the Petitioner," stated the order. .As such, the Court dismissed the plea with costs and ordered the petitioner to deposit ₹10,000 with the Kirtikar Law Library at the Bombay High Court. .The business in question was established in 1996 and ran on a Foreign Liquor III (FLIII) license. It was earlier shut down in 2016 pursuant to a Supreme Court decision as it was close to a National Highway..The owner, thereafter, constructed a wall on three sides of his establishment, thereby restricting access to the premises from the highway. Having done this, he proceeded to make a fresh application for a liquor licence. .The owner also wrote to the competent authority and obtained permission to shift his Country Liquor III (CL-III) licenced operations from another one of his restaurants to the one near the highway..The petitioner, through his counsel, advocate Veena B Thadani, contended that the orders granting a CL-III license to the owner were illegal. In this regard, it was argued that such operations would violate the restrictions on maintaining a certain distance from National Highways. .Arguments were also made against allowing the liquor business to continue in a predominantly residential area, which was alleged to have been started on the basis of a bogus NOC from a local authority..Appearing for the business owner, advocate Santosh L Patil, countered that the petitioner had no right to file the petition as he was not concerned with the license. The petition was a personal interest litigation that should be dismissed, Patil contended. It was also argued that the petitioner's allegations were not supported by evidence..The Court, in turn, agreed that the petitioner lacked locus to file the case. It was also noted that the petitioner had not objected to the original application for transfer of the CL-III license. ."Admittedly, Petitioner never objected or was not a party to the original Application seeking transfer of the CL III license from Ozar to the subject premises in Peth. The Petition as seen is not filed by the Petitioner in a representative capacity on behalf of the residents in the area. Therefore, the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Petition," the Court said..The Judge further found that the licensing authority had followed the due process of law in granting the liquor license in question and that the respondent owner had all the necessary documents and permissions to operate his business. .Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition with costs. The Court further ordered the petitioner to pay up the costs within a week's time..[Read Judgment]