Renewal of a vendor's license depends on existing partnerships and resolution of prior disputes; when no inter se disputes exist, licenses should be transferred accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

Aarti Sathe, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19^th October 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ Petition No. 7895 of 2011 along with Civil Application 1762 of 2012 filed by Partner of the Appellant’s father Mr. Sonba Anaji Chavan i.e. Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput was partly allowed. Being aggrieved by certain findings given in the impugned order, the Appellant has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Briefly the facts are:-

2.1 Sometime in the year 1973-74, the Appellant’s father i.e. Mr. Sonba Anaji Chavan was granted Vendor’s license (hereinafter referred to as the License) in form FL-II and CL/FL-III by the Government of Maharashtra under the Bombay Prohibition Act , 1949. This License was granted under the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 for retail sale of foreign liquor and country liquor. The Appellant’s father, Mr. Sonba Anaji Chavan was carrying on business in the name of the partnership firm M/s. Chavan and Company, wherein one Mr. Prasanna Kumar was the partner of the Appellant’s Father Mr. Sonba Anaji Chavan. However, later in 1990 the name of Shri. Prasanna Kumar was deleted and on 29^th June 1990, the Appellant’s father applied to the Collector of Pune for including the name of Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput as a partner in the aforesaid business. A statement was recorded by the State Excise Department, where Mr., Dilip Baburao Rajput undertook to abide by the terms and conditions of the new partnership deed approved by the Collector.

2.2 On 26^th July 1990, the Collector approved the new partnership deed and permitted addition of Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput on the License as a partner subject to the following two conditions.

(a)that the original Licensee i.e. Sonba A. Chavan would have a larger share in the Partnership; and

(b)that on death of the original Licensee, i.e. Sonba A. Chavan, the Incoming Partner (i.e. Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput herein) would not have any right on the Vendor’s Licences.

2.3 Further, clauses 4, 8 and 13 of the new partnership deed were as follows:

“4. the shares in Partnership were 51% tot the Appellant’s father and Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput 49%;

8. that Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput would have no right in the Vendor’s licence after the death, incapacity or terminal disease of the Appellant’s father and the licence would be transferred to the name of the Appellant’s father’s legal heirs;

13. that the Partnership would come into effect after approval by the Collector and Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput would have rights in accordance with the Partnership Deed and in the event of the death, incapacity or for any other reason if the relation of the original licence holder (i.e. the Appellant’s father) with the licence was severed, the newly added Partner would have no right whatsoever on the licence.”

2.4 On the basis of the above clauses in the partnership deed and the conditions mentioned therein, the name of Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput was included in the License and the same conditions were endorsed on the License on 26^th July 1990. Sometime in the year 1998, inter se disputes arose between the Appellant’s father Mr. Sonba Anaji Chavan and Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput regarding the workings of the partnership and therefore the Appellant’s father Mr. Sonba Anaji Chavan applied to the licensing authority requesting that the License given to the partnership deed for carrying on retail sale of foreign liquor and country liquor should not be renewed and the name of Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput should be deleted from the same.

2.5 On 30^th March 1998, Mr. Dilip Baburao Rajput applied for renewal of the License to the Collector, ho