Fraud vitiates all; an administrative order obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be recalled by the authority, regardless of statutory powers.

P.C.:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 10th October 2024 passed by respondent No.1 – the Revisional Authority, in Revision Application No.17 of 2024. By the said judgment, the Revisional Authority has confirmed the order dated 1st July 2024 passed by respondent No.2 – the Appellate Authority, whereby the order passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the transfer of the FL-II license in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 came to be set aside. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said orders on the ground that the transfer of license in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 is vitiated by fraud and impersonation, and ought not to have been sustained.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition, briefly stated, are as under:

3. Petitioner No.1 was the lawful holder of an FL-II license bearing No.FL-II 15 and was operating his licensed business under the name and style of “Venus Wine” in the district of Chandrapur. The Government of Maharashtra, vide Notification dated 10th March 2015, in exercise of its powers conferred under the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act , declared the entire district of Chandrapur as a “Dry District”, thereby directing closure of all liquor vending licenses with effect from 1st April 2015. However, by way of an exception, liberty was granted to holders of FL-II and CL-III licenses to seek transfer of their respective licenses to other districts, with the specific exclusion of Wardha and Gadchiroli districts. Availing of the said liberty, petitioner No.1, vide application dated 18th September 2017, approached the Collector, Chandrapur seeking permission to shift his FL-II license from Kamla Nehru Ward, Warora, District Chandrapur to Shop Nos. 118 and 119, Fortliza, Kalyani Nagar, Yerawada, District Pune. The said request was considered and the Government of Maharashtra, by communication dated 18th July 2018, granted approval for transfer of the license from Chandrapur to Pune.

4. According to the petitioners, since petitioner No.1 was a resident of Chandrapur and was not in a position to personally oversee or manage the day-to-day operations of the business in Pune, he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Vyankatesh Kotalwar, thereby authorising him to act on behalf of petitioner No.1 in respect of the licensed business, including but not limited to operating the bank account pertaining to the said business.

5. The petitioners allege that taking undue advantage of the said Power of Attorney and in furtherance of a fraudulent design, an application came to be made for transfer of the FL-II license from the name of petitioner No.1 to the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5, by impersonating petitioner No.1 and fabricating documents purporting to be executed by him. It is further alleged that, in the process of effecting the said transfer, the original photograph of petitioner No.1 affixed on the license record was removed and replaced with the photograph of a person falsely impersonating petitioner No.1, thereby enabling respondent Nos.4 and 5 to fraudulently secure the license in their names.

6. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.4 and 5, acting in concert with the person who had impersonated petitioner No.1, proceeded to file an application seeking transfer of the FL-II license from its existing location at Kalyani Nagar, Yerawada, Pune to Sanaswadi, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. It is the case of the petitioners that the said application was filed by misrepresenting facts and through the continuation of the fraudulent impersonation of petitioner No.1. The Collector, Pune, vide order dated 20th July 2022, allowed the said application and thereby permitted the transfer of the FL-II license standing in the name of petitioner No.1 to the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5. The petitioners allege that this transfer order was obtai