The license granted to an individual cannot be claimed by a partnership after its dissolution; statutory compliance is necessary for partner recognition under licensing rules.

JUDGMENT :

KISHORE C. SANT, J.

1. Heard Mr. Longani, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Patil, Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.5 and the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of the admission.

3. Civil Application No.437 of 2025 is filed seeking modification of order dated 23^rd September 2024 by which this Court had vacated the interim relief that was granted in the petition. Civil Application No. 8987 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner for fixing early date of hearing of writ petition and for directing the learned District Magistrate to maintain status quo as per order dated 10^th December 2021.

4. This Writ Petition arises out of judgment and order dated 30^th July 2019 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Excise and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, in Revision Application No.FLR-1217/RA-14/ RAUSHU-2, thereby allowing the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.5.

5. The dispute is about FL-II and CL-III license standing in the name of petitioners. The learned Minister, by way of impugned judgment and order, has held that Respondent No.5 is entitled to the said license, thereby setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Collector, State Excise Department, Ahmednagar, and learned Commissioner, Excise Department, Mumbai.

6. The dispute, in short, is that on 21^st December 1973, a license was granted by the State in favour of the petitioner since deceased now through present petitioners. However, for some reason, the petitioner could not operate the said license. On 21^st November 1984, the petitioner entered into a partnership agreement with Respondent No.5 for running business under the name as “M/s. Kailas Wines”. The partnership was at Will. This partnership was not accepted by the learned Collector, and therefore, a fresh partnership was executed between the parties on 28^th May 1992. Both partners were shown as working partners. This partnership was also at Will. The license continued to stand solely in the name of the petitioner.

7. On 23^rd December 1993, the petitioner issued a legal notice for dissolution of partnership to Respondent No.5 for violation of terms and conditions of the partnership agreement. On noticing this, the learned Collector suspended the liquor license by order dated 27^th March 2000. An appeal before the learned Commissioner filed by Respondent No.5 came to be rejected on 31^st August 2000. A revision came to be preferred before the Hon’ble Minister against the order in appeal. The learned Minister passed an order dated 30^th June 2001 in favour of Respondent No.5, allowing him to continue and operate the liquor business until the partnership dispute is resolved.

8. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No.4308 of 2001. The said came to be allowed in favour of the petitioner on 23^rd October 2001. Thereafter the Respondent No.5 filed Letters Patent Appeal (for short “LPA”) No.51 of 2002. By order dated 7^th February 2003, the Division Bench held that the dispute regarding the dissolution of the partnership is pending in the Civil Court, as that time, arbitration proceeding was going on. The business of Respondent No.5 was protected to save the Government Revenue. The respondent No.5 was allowed to continue the business.

9. The State Government filed Review Application seeking review of the judgment in LPA. In the review proceedings, the Division Bench clearly held that the Respondent No.5 had no right to apply for a fresh license or any license independently. It is the petitioner who had to apply for renewal of licence afresh. The responden