Induction of a legal heir does not constitute ownership change, thus fees for partnership reconstitution should not apply.

JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2018 in WP(C)No.6237/2018 whereby it was dismissed. The petitioner therein is the appellant. He filed the said writ petition seeking quashment of Ext.P7 order to the extent he was required thereunder to pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- viz., Rs.20,00,000/- each for the induction of one Joseph Antony into the partnership in place of his father Sri.K.D.Antony, who was its Managing Partner, upon his death and also for allowing change in the name of the licensee in Ext.P2(C) viz., in the name of the appellant who was nominated as the Managing Partner of the firm upon the death of the existing licensee viz., the aforesaid Sri.K.D.Antony who represented the partnership firm in his capacity as its Managing Partner. He also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to run the Beer and Wine parlour covered by Ext.P2(C) licence, without insisting payment of Rs.40,00,000/- as ordered under Ext.P7 and also to allow change of name of the licensee in Ext.P2(C) as sought for.

2. Sans elaboration the basic facts which ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment is as follows:-

The appellant/the petitioner is the Managing Partner of the partnership firm in question, functioning in the name and style “Hotel Salkara” and he was so nominated pursuant to death of its Managing Partner and the licensee under Ext.P2(C). The partnership firm was originally constituted with late K.D.Antony as its Managing Partner as per Ext.P1 Deed of Partnership dated 14.10.2007 that obtained approval from the Excise Commissioner. On its constitution, the firm applied for and obtained FL 3 licence and it was issued in the name of the then Managing Partner Sri.K.D.Antony. On the strength of the licence, which was renewed periodically, the firm was conducting a hotel with FL 3 licence till 31.03.2014. It became non-operational after 31.03.2014 owing to the change in abkari policy of the Government. Thereafter, Rule 13(11B) was inserted in the Foreign Liquor Rules , 1953 (for brevity 'FL Rules') with effect from 30.12.2014 to enable for the grant of FL 11 licence to any hotel which was a grantee of FL 3 licence and such licence was in force as on 31.03.2014, on request by the licensee. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise is the authority to issue such a licence in form FL 11. Certainly, it was grantable only subject to the conditions specifically mentioned in Rule 13(11B). Being the Managing Partner of the firm constituted as per Ext.P1 which was running the aforesaid hotel with a valid FL 3 licence as on 31.03.2014 the aforesaid late Sri.K.D.Antony applied for FL 11 licence and obtained Ext.P2 licence. The said licence was renewed for the period from 2017-2018 as is evident from Ext.P2(C). However, it had to be closed on 31.03.2017 pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court inState of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu reported in2017(1) KLT 132 (SC). While it remained closed, on 28.04.2017, the said K.D.Antony breathed his last. Thereupon, in terms of Rule 24A of the FL Rules and in the light of the aforesaid decision, application was made for permission to shift the hotel with FL 11 licence to another location. It is to be noted that prior to the submission of the said application, in place of the deceased partner Sri.K.D.Antony, his son and l