Changes in partnership due to a partner’s death do not qualify as a transfer of license, thus fees for license change/reconstitution were deemed invalid.

O R D E R

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

Respondents in the writ appeal are the petitioners in this review petition seeking review of the judgement in the writ appeal. The parties are referred to in this order for convenience, as they appear in the writ appeal.

2. The appellant is the Managing Partner of a firm named 'Hotel Salkara'. The firm was running a Bar on the strength of a licence issued to them in Form FL-3 under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (the Rules). One K.D.Antony was the Managing Partner of the firm when the said licence was issued. As such, the licence was issued on behalf of the firm in the name of K.D.Antony. The firm was running the Bar on the strength of the said licence till 31.3.2014, on which day, the licence became non-operational due to the change in the Abkari policy. Later, in terms of Rule 13(11B) of the Rules, licences in Form FL-11 were issued to those who were holding licence in Form FL-3 till 31.3.2014. In the light of Rule 13(11B), the firm was also issued a licence in Form FL-11 in the name of K.D.Antony and the said licence was being renewed from time to time till 31.3.2017, on which day, the firm had to stop its business at the location where the business was being carried on in the light of the directions issued by the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Balu , (2017) 6 SCC 715 . K.D.Antony died thereafter on 28.04.2017. As per the deed of partnership of the firm, in the event of death of a partner, the remaining partners are entitled to continue business in the name of the firm after satisfying the claim of the legal representatives of the deceased partner in respect of his share or by admitting one among the legal representatives of the deceased partner as a partner in the firm in the place of the deceased partner. In the light of the said provision, the partnership was reconstituted admitting one among the legal representatives of K.D.Antony also as a partner in the firm. When the firm was reconstituted, the appellant was nominated as the new Managing Partner of the firm. The appellant thereupon applied to the competent authority under the Rules for permission to shift the location of the Bar to a place which does not contravene the directions in the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, for continuing the business of the firm. He also preferred an application to accord sanction for the reconstitution of the firm effected by substituting one of the legal representatives of the deceased partner in the place of the deceased partner. Similarly, he preferred an application for issuing the licence of the firm in his name in the place of the deceased partner. In terms of Ext.P7 order, the competent authority accorded sanction to change the licence of the Bar to the name of the appellant on condition that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. The condition aforesaid was imposed purportedly invoking the third proviso (wrongly shown as second proviso in Ext.P7) to Rule 19(iv) of the Rules then in force. In terms of the very same order, the competent authority has also accorded sanction for the reconstitution made on condition that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs for the said purpose as well. The second condition was imposed purportedly invoking the second proviso (wrongly shown as first proviso in Ext.P7) to Rule 19(iv) of the Rules then in force. By a separate order, the competent authority has also accorded permission to the firm to change the location of its Bar. Though the appellant challenged the direction in Ext.P7 order to remit Rs.20 lakhs each for according sanction for the reconstitution of the firm effected and for changing the name of the licensee, in W.P.(C) No.6237 of 2018, the same was dismissed. The appeal was one preferred challenging the decision in the said writ petition.

3. This court found on facts that the second and third provisos to Rule 19(iv) of the Rules cannot be applied to the facts of the present case for insisting payment of Rs.20 lakhs each for