2013 (7) TMI 715 - HC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of licence of liquor shop - Transaction or carrying of illicit liquor recovered from Petitioner s vehicle Such transportation is within his knowledge - One of the accused arrested from the spot had clearly stated that the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle, carries business of transportation of illicit liquor through this vehicle and that he had been working for him. He had further stated that the petitioner had allowed the use of the vehicle for transportation of the illicit liquor and whatever profits are earned are shared with the petitioner Held that - The aforesaid statement of one of the accused clearly proves the tacit consent of the petitioner and that he had knowledge of such illegal activity. The said statement has not been controverted by any material, evidence or is proved to be false otherwise - The recovery of illicit liquor from the petitioner s vehicle though he may not be present or using the vehicle at the relevant time, would amount to recovery from his possession as the vehicle continues to be in his persuasive possession Decided against the Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
- Cancellation of liquor licenses based on possession of illicit liquor
- Distinction between prosecution for violation of provisions and cancellation of license
- Vicarious liability of the owner of the vehicle for possession of illicit liquor

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the cancellation of liquor licenses held by a petitioner for country and foreign liquor shops due to the possession of illicit liquor. The licensing authority is empowered to cancel licenses if liquor is found in possession of the licensee against the provisions of the Act. In this case, the petitioner's vehicle was used to transport Punjab made whisky, leading to the seizure of liquor and arrest of individuals. Although the petitioner's name was later removed from the criminal case, the grounds for license cancellation still exist as per the relevant rules.

The court emphasized the distinction between prosecuting a person for violations of the Act and initiating proceedings for license cancellation. Even if no prosecution is launched against the licensee, the licensing authority can still cancel the license based on the grounds specified in the rules. The involvement or non-involvement of the petitioner in any offense does not affect the authority's right to cancel the license for breach of provisions.

Regarding the possession of illicit liquor in the petitioner's vehicle, the court held that constructive possession applies, and the owner remains in control even if the vehicle is operated by someone else. The petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle, was deemed to have knowledge of the transportation of illicit liquor through his vehicle based on statements from the arrested individuals. The court concluded that the recovery of illicit liquor from the petitioner's vehicle constitutes possession by the petitioner, leading to the application of the relevant rules for license cancellation.

Ultimately, the court found no illegality in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle with knowledge of its use for illegal activities, cannot escape the cancellation of licenses under the applicable rules.