In Brief
Retail liquor dealers challenged sealing orders and ex-parte stays passed by the Commissioner State Excise under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, alleging bias and procedural violations. The High Court quashed both the sealing order and the interim order, but made adverse personal remarks about the Commissioner's conduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the dealers' appeals against the Commissioner, holding that ex-parte interim orders do not constitute bias and that allegations of bias require substantial material. It allowed the Commissioner's appeal, expunging the High Court's disparaging remarks as unnecessary and harmful. The Court also set aside the High Court's anticipatory direction imposing stay on future orders not yet passed, finding such preemption of appellate authority unconstitutional.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.