2013 (6) TMI 89 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Liquor bar license - Suspension of licence - refusal to record/substitute the name of the petitioner in place of his deceased mother in the liquor licence in absence of succession certificate - interim direction in the revision permitting the license to remain operative in the name of respondent no. 5, co-licensee during pendency of the revision - Held that - Entitlement of the petitioner to have his name included in the license on the death of Smt. Sumitra Devi as a heir was settled by this Court vide judgment Kamlesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (2013 (6) TMI 114 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT). The Court upholding the view taken by the revisional authority on 13.0.2010 held that on the death of mother, respondent no. 5 would continue to hold the license till it subsists and that the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased mother are to be brought on record but their eligibility as a co-licensee has to be considered under the U.P. Licensing under Surcharge Fees System Rules, 1968. It is for the consideration of the above eligibility alone the matter was remanded but as for as the right of the petitioner to be substituted in the license as a heir of Smt. Sumitra Devi was approved. The above order of the High Court is final. It has been accepted by the parties as it was not challenged any further. Therefore, the right of the petitioner to be included/substituted as heir of Smt. Sumitra Devi in the said licence stood concluded. This leaves no scope for directing to produce the succession certificate. Only the point of eligibility of the petitioner was left open to be considered. None of the authorities so far have held that the petitioner is not eligible under the aforesaid 1968 rules so as to be a co-licensee with respondent no. 5 there was no justification for the appellate authority to have directed for production of the succession certificate - direction to the appellate authority to forthwith consider the eligibility of the petitioner to be included as a co-licensee.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over FL-6 liquor license inheritance and substitution rights post the death of the original licensee.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over the FL-6 liquor license held by a deceased individual, with the petitioner seeking to be included as a co-licensee. The license was initially held by the mother of the petitioner and another individual, with subsequent attempts to include the petitioner's name in the license. The petitioner's application for inclusion was initially dismissed but was later approved in a revisional order. This decision was challenged through various legal avenues, leading to conflicting orders regarding the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the license.

The High Court had previously ruled on the entitlement of the petitioner to be included in the license as an heir of the deceased licensee. The Court upheld the petitioner's right to be substituted in the license but left open the consideration of the petitioner's eligibility under the relevant licensing rules. The Court's decision was accepted by the parties and not further challenged, establishing the petitioner's right to be included in the license.

Despite the settled nature of the petitioner's entitlement as an heir to the license, subsequent authorities directed the petitioner to produce a succession certificate and suspended the license. The Court found no justification for such directions, especially considering the licensee had been operating since 1996-97, and the petitioner had previously consented to the inclusion of another individual's name in the license.

Given the circumstances and the settled nature of the petitioner's entitlement, the Court quashed the directive for producing a succession certificate and ordered the appellate authority to expeditiously consider the petitioner's eligibility to be included as a co-licensee. Until a final decision on the eligibility is made, the existing co-licensee would continue to operate the license without interruption.

In conclusion, the Court resolved the immediate dispute by setting aside the contentious orders and directing a prompt consideration of the petitioner's eligibility as a co-licensee, ensuring the license's uninterrupted operation in the interim. The parties were instructed to cooperate for the swift resolution of the appeal, emphasizing the need for timely adjudication in the matter.