PAMELA P BRAGANZA Vs. FINLAY BRAGANZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition was on Board before me on 28. 11. 2005 and 29. 11. 2005 when the matter was heard at length. After hearing the matter at length it was proposed that the matter can be settled and draft consent terms were prepared. However, on 30. 11. 2005 when the matter was called out, the respondent no. 1 has changed the advocate and now the advocate seeks to reargue the matter. In view of the fact that the matter was fully heard, I have declined to give him permission to reargue the matter. It is because merely by change of advocates the party cannot have a fresh round of arguments in the matter. It is also because it is not desirable to encourage such a kind of practice by which after the hearing of the matter the lawyers are changed for the purpose of arguments. In view thereof, i proceed with the passing of the order as under.

(2.) The facts in the present case are not in dispute and for the purpose of the present writ petition they are briefly enumerated as under :-

(3.) A partnership firm, namely, M/s. Rustom Wines is holder of FL-II licence issued under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The said firm was a partnership firm and had two partners one Mr. Peter Braganza and the daughter Pamela Peter Braganza. Both the partners, namely Peter Braganza had 60% share and Pamela Braganza had 40% share in the said partnership. However, the liquor licence issued by the authority under the Bombay Prohibition act was not in the name of the partners but in the name of the partnership firm. There is also no dispute that the said Peter Braganza expired on 9. 5. 2002. The said Peter Braganza on his death left behind a will dated 29. 4. 2002 under which he bequeathed his share in the partnership of 60% by conferring the same in such a manner that on his death the second respondent would have 40% share. The petitioner will have 30% share and the respondent no. 1 Will have 30% share in the said partnership firm. After the death of Peter braganza the said respondent no. l applied to the authorities for inclusion of his name in the said liquor licence. He has contended before the authority that he has the share in the said licence and, therefore, the licence must be rectified. On the said application, the authority i. e. the Collector at the first instance passed an order on 17. 7. 2003 that till and until the disputes are resolved by an appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction the said licence to remain suspended against which an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of State excise and in the appeal by an order dated 28. 7. 2003 the said appeal was allowed inter alia holding that the Collector could not have suspended the licence but parties must resolve their dispute in a court of competent jurisdiction and a legal heir is not entitled to stop the business of the firm M/s. Rustom Wines. However, the respondent n. b. 1 thereafter preferred a revision before the Minister and the minister by a revisional order once again suspended the licence and set aside the order of the appellate court and the order of the collector suspending the licence has been confirmed.