Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R. C. CHAVAN, J.
YASHWANT MOTIRAM PATEL
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Writ Petition No. 3776 of 1995
Decided On : June 8, 2009
quashing - appellate order - State excise - CL-III licence No. 26/86-87 - The court discussed the provisions of the State excise act and the orders passed by the State Government and the Commissioner regarding the transfer of liquor license. The court analyzed the authority of the Commissioner to override the orders of the Government and the validity of the conditions imposed on the license. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions related to the transfer of liquor licenses and the authority of the Commissioner in such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an appellate order passed by the Commissioner of State excise, which allowed the appeal against the order of the Collector and directed the removal of their names from a liquor license. The dispute revolved around the transfer of the license and the conditions imposed by the State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commissioner had the authority to make decisions regarding the transfer of liquor licenses and that the conditions imposed by the State Government were valid. The court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioners could not succeed to the license held by the original licensee.
Issues: The issues involved the authority of the Commissioner to override the orders of the Government, the validity of the conditions imposed on the license, and the inheritance of the license by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commissioner had the authority to make decisions regarding the transfer of liquor licenses and that the conditions imposed by the State Government were valid. The court also emphasized that the petitioners could not succeed to the license held by the original licensee.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 2 ) FACTS relevant for deciding this petition are as under : one Narayan Naik was granted licence no. CL-III 22/86-87 for running a country liquor shop at Ashok Chowk, Siraspeth, Nagpur. On 04. 10. 1988 an application, bearing signatures of narayan Naik, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 5, was moved for transfer of said licence in the name of petitioner No. 2 a Private Limited company of which the three signatories were stated to be directors. After an enquiry, by order dated 23. 02. 1989 the State Government transferred the licence in the name of petitioner no. 2 upon certain conditions, namely, that original licensee should get larger share of profit; if the original licensees relation with licence is severed, remaining two directors shall not have any right over the licence, and upon demise of original licensee, his heirs will get the benefits from the licence.
( 3 ) ON 27. 02. 1989, the order dated 23. 02. 1989 was cancelled and the State government directed transfer of licence in favour of petitioner No. 2 as a special case. Thus the conditions in order dated 23. 02. 1989 were deleted. On 01. 06. 1989 original licensee Naik allegedly resigned as director and his resignation was accepted on 12. 06. 1989. An application to delete name of Naik from licence was made. Original licensee Narayan challenged this deletion by filing Writ Petition No. 3303/1989 on 05. 12. 1989, which he withdrew with liberty to file a suit, if maintainable.
( 4 ) ON 28. 03. 1990 the Commissioner directed the Collector not to renew licence in the name of petitioner No. 2 and to hold an enquiry. The Collector informed petitioner on 30. 03. 1990 that licence would not be renewed without the consent of Naik on the prescribed renewal form. This order was challenged by petitioners by filing Writ Petition No. 766 of 1990 without making Narayan Naik a respondent. He intervened. The petition was allowed on 25. 11. 1992, directing the Collector to hold a fresh enquiry. Upon remand the collector rejected objections of Naik by order dated 09. 09. 1993. Naik challenged this order by preferring an appeal before the Commissioner.
( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal, naik expired on 05. 06. 1994 and respondent No. 4 prosecuted the appeal further, claiming to be daughter and heir of original licensee Naik. Intervenor Vikram Narayan Naik in the present petition claims mat he was adopted by Narayan naik by registered adoption deed dated 25. 05. 1990 and is the sole heir of original licensee. He states that respondent No. 4 is not the daughter of said Narayan Naik.
( 6 ) THE appeal was allowed by the commissioner by his impugned order dated 08. 11. 1995.
( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No. 4, the intervene, as also the learned Assistant Government pleader.
( 8 ) IT is not necessary to go into the question of whether respondent No. 4 or the intervenor are the heirs of original licensee Naik, for deciding this petition. The dispute to be resolved he/re is one between the estate of j original licensee and the petitioners, who claim to be transferees.
( 9 ) THE learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in his statement of claim filed in december, 1992 before the Collector, Narayan naik had stated that petitioners, who were his employees, took advantage of his old age and indifferent health, as also shock of loss of his wife, and obtained signatures on a number of documents, which they used, to get the licence transferred. In that statement Naik had stated that petitioners could take such undue advantage as naik had no issues. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that respondent No. 4 c
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
