MEENA NARAYAN IDNANI Vs. COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition deserves to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The learned Counsel on both sides are heard on this footing.

(2.) SMT. Meena Narayan Idnani and her husband Mr. Narayan J. Idnani were joint holders of Licence FL II No. 233 for retail sale of foreign liquor. The said joint licence holders used to carry on business in partnership in the name and style of `m/s. J. Vikram Sales (India) at Shop No. 4, Laxmi Ratan Building, L. H. Road (W), Mahim. The said joint licence was initially granted in the year 1975. Sometime in the year 1986, one of the joint licence-holders, i. e. the said Mr. Narayan J. Idnani died. The petitioner, widow made an application to first respondent informing him of death of her husband and seeking amendment of the licence by deleting the name of the deceased therefrom. The application was granted by the authority on payment of amendment fee of Rs. 10/ -. The said licence was in favour of petitioner alone from 1st April, 1989. At that time, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise used to take the view and rightly so that an application for deleting the name of the deceased from the joint licence did not amount to application for transfer of licence from one name to another and the transfer fee of Rs. 20,000 was not payable by the surviving licensee while seeking deletion of name of the deceased from the licence. The petitioner has annexed a copy of order dated 1st June, 1988 passed by the Commissioner in the case of M/s. Ruby Wines as Exhibit `j to the petition.

(3.) BY order dated 30th August, 1989, the Collector of Bombay demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000 from the petitioner as transfer fee in respect of the said licence stating therein in substance that the name of her husband was deleted from the licence on payment of Rs. 10/- on the footing that the transfer fee would have to be paid by the petitioner if the Collector was directed by the Government to recover such fee from the petitioner. By order dated 15th January, 1993, the Commissioner dismissed the petitioners appeal against the said order in view of the change in instructions of the Government in this behalf. The Commissioner held that the action of the authorities in demanding the said amount from the petitioner-widow was harsh but it could not be helped.