The authority to decide on the managing partner and the transfer of the licence lies with the majority of the partners in a partnership.

R. Bhaskaran, J.

1. This original petition is filed to quash Exts. P4 and P13 proceedings of the Board of Revenue (Excise) and the order contained in Ext. P9 letter dated 30-10-1996 of the first respondent and also for directing respondents 1 to 3 for restoring the FL 3 licence of the Modern Hotel, Kundara, in the name of the petitioner and for other reliefs. Modern Enterprises is a partnership firm which consisted of 5 partners including the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. The firm was running a hotel by name "Modern Hotel" at Kundara and was having FL 3 Bar Licence from the year 1984-85. The petitioner being the Managing Director of the firm, the licence was in the name of the petitioner. The fifth respondent filed an application dated 3-8-1995 requesting for transfer of FL 3 licence in her name. By Ext. P4 dated 26-9-1995, the 2nd respondent transferred the licence in the name of the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by Ext. P4, the petitioner submitted a petition to the Minister for Excise. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue issued a notice to the petitioner for a hearing on 30-11-1996. It is the case of the petitioner that no hearing was conducted on 30-11-1996 and it was adjourned to a future date. The Government by letter dated 30-10-1996 had already informed the petitioner that his request to transfer FL 3 licence in his name cannot be agreed to in view of the new partnership and the fact that the present licensee is the 5th respondent.

2. The Board of Revenue by Ext. P13 dated 17-2-1997 held that the Excise Commissioner has no jurisdiction to review that decision of the Government and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext. P13, the petitioner filed Ext. P14 representation dated 11-3-1997 to call for the file and to direct the Board to cancel the transfer of licence effected in the name of the 5th respondent. Since no order was passed on Ext. P14, petitioner has approached this Court with the present O. P.

3. It is stated that Ext. P13 order is in violation of Ext. P10 judgment of this Court. It is also stated in the O. P. that the 2nd respondent had acted illegally by holding that there was a valid authorisation issued by the 4th respondent authorising the 5th respondent to submit application for transfer of FL 3 licence in her name. According to the petitioner, Ext. P5 extract of the agreement executed by the petitioner and other partners would show that full authority for the conduct of the hotel vested with the petitioner and two other members of the firm. It was only the management of the Mayoora Hotel that was vested in the 4th respondent. It is stated that Ext. P4 proceedings of the Board of Revenue is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Rules relating to the grant of FL 3 licence.

4. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that by Ext. P4 proceedings sanction was accorded to transfer the FL 3 licence from the name of the petitioner to the 5th respondent. It was passed after considering all the documents by the Excise Authorities and after taking statements from the concerned parties.

5. The contention of the contesting respondents is that is was the partnership which was conducting the business. Originally, the licence was in the name of the husband of the 5th respondent since he was the managing partner. Subsequently, another partnership was constituted incorporating the 5th respondent in the place of her husband and petitioner was nominated as the managing partners. The licence was transferred in the name of the petitioner in his capacity as managing partner. Another FL 3 licence for conducting the bar in Mayoora Hotel was obtained in the name of another partner Sumuhendra Babu. Thereafter, few more partners were inducted into the firm and the licences were renewed in the name of the two persons.

6. Subsequently, the FL 3 licence of Mayoora Hotel was transferred to the name of the 4th respondent. It is the case of respondents 4 and 5 that there