SHAMLAL JAGLAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29th September 1992, passed by the respondent No. 1- Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Bombay, arising out of the order dated 14-5-1992 passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, M. S. Bombay, in Appeal No : 56/1992 whereby the respondent No. 1 set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and ordered that the foreign liquor licence should be restored in the name of legal heirs of deceased - Shivnarayan Jaiswal, the respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under :---On 26th of June 1973, the present petitioner Shamlal Jaglal Jaiswal was issued a licence in Form FL. II (foreign liquor Licence II) for sale of foreign liquor. The licence was issued by the Collector, Aurangabad. After obtaining the licence, the petitioner-Shamlal started his liquor shop in the name and style "jaiswal Wines" at Gulmandi, Aurangabad. It appears that in the passage of time, the said Shamlal, the petitioner, with a view to have a financial assistance as also the assistance in work, took the respondent No. 2- Shivnarayan as a partner and, accordingly, necessary partnership-deed was drawn on 21st November 1979. However, it further appears that the said Shivnarayan was required to wait to get his name inserted in the licence till 6th of February 1982 when an application was made by the present petitioner, impressing upon the authorities concerned to enter the name of said Shivnarayan, the respondent No. 2 in the licence. It would be necessary at this stage to mention that during the pendency of the proceedings before the authorities below the said Shivnarayan expired and the names of his legal representatives are brought on record (who are hereinafter referred to as "respondent No. 2" jointly ).

(3.) THE application which was made for introducing the name of the respondent No. 2 in the said licence was first refused by the Collector, Aurangabad. An appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and State Excise against the above-said order of refusal was allowed by order dated 12th March 1985 and their names were permitted to be introduced in the said licence. However, it was subject to certain conditions. The said conditions were; that the petitioner who is the original licensee was to remain a major beneficiary and that the incoming partner, i. e. respondent No. 2 was to have no claim to the licence in the event of death or retirement of original licensee. I feel it proper to refer to the exact wordings of the said order :---