P PRAMELA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of one Balaiah. The said Balaiah died on 18-1-1981 while running a wine shop at Ibrahimpatnam Village Ranga Reddy Distsict under the name and Style of "Durga Wines Shop". The said Baiaiah must obtamed an abkari licence from. the excise authorities in the year 1973. Under the Excise Act an Abkari Licence is an annual licence but renawable from year to year. Balaiah's licence was being renewed from year to year. In the Akbari year of 1980-81 the petitioner the wite of the said Balarah, applied for the continuance of the licence in her name for the remainder of She period. The application was allowed and the licence was continued for the unexpired portion in the name of the petitioner, the wife of Balaiah. Now for the succeeding abkari year of 1981-82 the petitioner made an application to renew the licence which is different from continuance. That application of the petitioner was not granted and renewal as refused mainly on the ground that Balaiah was jn arrears of exclse revenue. Against that order the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The question now is whether the petitioner has a right to ask for the renewal ot the Excise licence which her husband was holding during his life time. It is argued by Mr. Pulla Reddy that under the Andhrs Pradesh Foreign Liquor and India Liquor Rules, 1970, the petitioner has such a right. Rule 40 of the above rules, which is relied upon reads thus:- "A licence issued under there rules shall be only to the person named therein and on his death his heirs or legal representatives may apply for the continuance of the licence in his name to the licensing authority within thirty days of the death of the licensee. If the licensing authority is satisfied, he may, with the prior approval of the Commissioner continue the licence in the name of the heir or legal representative of the deceased licensee without collecting fresh licence fee for the unexpired period of licence". The language of Rule 40 is in no way ambiguous. It clearly denies the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The langusge makes it clear that the licence issued is personal to the licensee. Therefore, it dies along with the death of the licensee. The rule means that with the death of the licensee the licence shall abate. What the rule provides for is that notwithstanding the fact that the licence which was granted to the deceased person would come to an end with the death of the licensee, his heirs or legal representatives may apply for the continuance of the licence for the unexpired portion of the licence. The Rule does not deal with the grant of a renewal at all. It deals with continuance only. The authorities, under rule 40. have been given no discretion to renew that licence for a fresh period of abkari year. I cannot agree with the contention of Mr. Pulla Reddy to the effect that in the last concluding words of Rule 40 the Commissioner is empowered to continue the licence in the name of the heir or legal representative of the deceased licensee for a fresh period. The very use of the word 'continue' makes this argument untenable. The rule by the use of the word 'continue' Is speaking of a situation of unbroken use of the licence by the heir. The licence being effective only for a period of twelve months it automatically comes to an end by the lapse of that period and the question of its being continued beyond that period would not arise in the subsequent year. What is required for doing business in the subsequent period is a renewal of the licence. Rule 40 does not deal with that situation of renewal at all. A licence which is personal to the licensee by reason of Rule 40, cannot but come to an end with the death of that person.

(3.) For these reasons, I cannot grant any relief In this writ petition. it is accordingly, dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.