Partner objections cannot solely negate a majority decision for transferring a license; disputes require resolution by a competent court.

J U D G M E N T

[WP(C) Nos.21438/2025, 43789/2025]

WP(C) No.43789/2025 The petitioners challenge Ext.P23 order, whereby the request made for the transfer of the bar licence granted in the name of the 4^th respondent was rejected.

2. Originally, Sri.Bissin T. Kumar, the 2^nd petitioner, Sri.Kunnathu Dileep Akash, the 4^th respondent and one Sri. Shibu K were partners of M/S Ozone Ventures, the 1^st petitioner as per the partnership deed dated 17.07.2018.

3. The firm was constituted for running a hotel business. The hotel was classified as a Four-Star Hotel, and a bar licence was granted in favour of the 4^th respondent, as seen from Ext.P5 on 29.03.2025. It appears that disputes arose between the partners, and the petitioners would allege that the activities of the 4^th respondent resulted in the bickering, which led to the subsequent actions.

4. On a complaint preferred against the 4^th respondent, the bar was sealed, and the order was pasted in the premises on 23.05.2025. The petitioners would allege that even without the majority decision, a request was made for the closure of the bar, at the instance of the complaint by the 4^th respondent. The petitioners also moved the Excise Authorities with a representation.

5. Under such circumstances, the petitioners decided to effect a change of licence as early as 13.11.2024, and a notice was issued to the 4^th respondent, as seen from Ext.P14. The 4^th respondent did not attend the meeting, and a decision was taken on 20.11.2024 to apply for a change of licence and an application was submitted through Ext.P17 to the 2^nd respondent, which was forwarded through the proper channel.

6. Since no action was taken on the application, the petitioners preferred WP(C) No.25206 of 2025, which was disposed of, as per Ext.P20 judgment on 04.08.2025, directing a decision to be taken. Accordingly, the parties were heard, and Ext.P23 order was passed on 21.10.2025, rejecting the application, holding that the requisite documents were not produced and that the transfer was objected to by the present licencee, the 4^th respondent. It was found that the necessary clearance certificates were not produced in respect of all partners and that the disputes among the partners will have to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.

7. After perusing Ext.P23 order and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, it is to be seen that the request for transfer of the licence could not have been rejected for the reasons mentioned in Ext.P23. True, the petitioners ought to have produced the documents that are legally required. However, simply because the 4^th respondent opposed the change of licence, the same could not have been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the minutes of the meeting of the firm was produced, which would show that the majority decision was in favour of the transfer and as such, the opposition by the 4^th respondent herein alone could not have been taken as a reason for not transferring the licence. As rightly noticed by the Excise Commissioner, there are disputes between the partners, and only a competent Civil Court can decide on the same.

8. The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent voices his concern and points out that, if the transfer is allowed, from that day onwards, the entire criminal liability must be fastened on the transferee. Needless to say, the liability/consequences imposed by the Statute will fall on the transferee, from the date of transfer. However, the civil liability will continue to remain with all the partners, going by the provisions of Rule 13(c) of the Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules .

9. Given the above, Ext.P23 order canno