LAWS(ALL)-1986-7-35

TRILOK CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 29, 1986
TRILOK CHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner no. 1 was at the relevant time holder of a license in Form F. L. 17 for the retail vend of denatured spirit. By means of this petition, he has prayed for quashing of a communication dated 1-6-1977 which states that the Excise Commisioner has not approved the grant of a partnership said to have been entered into between the petitioner no. 1 and 2. THE Communication further states that the license now remains in the name of the petitioner no. 1 alone.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner no. 1 made an application addressed to the Excise Collector, Meerut for the addition of the name of Bhupeadra Kumar petitioner no. 2 on the aforesaid license. THE application was made on the assertion that the petitioner no. 1 has taken petitioner no. 2 as a partner in the business of the retail vend of denatured spirit. It appears initially the Excise Collector had approved the addition of the name of the petitioner no. 2 in the license held by the petitioner no. 1 but subsequently, the Excise Commissioner to whom the matter was forwarded for approval declined to accord the same.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner aswell as learned Standing Counsel we find no merit in this petition. In the first place, it may be noted that the Full Bench referred to above had not struck down paragraph 337 which requires the approval of the Excise Commissioner for the transfer or sub-lease or partnership of Excise License. All that the Full Bench has held is that the said paragraph does not have the force of law and consequently the Income Tax Authorities could not refuse to register the partnership concern on the ground that the Excise Commissioner had not approved the same. It is at best an administrative instruction. We are clearly of the view that even as an administrative instruction it has a binding effect on the authorities. The Excise Collector was hence obliged to obtain the approval of the Excise commissioner as envisaged by paragraph 337 of the Excise Manual.