2024 (1) TMI 1255 - HC - Customs

Direction to respondent to decide the stay application which was moved along with Appeal preferred under Section 137 of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 - cancellation of FL-III licence in exercise of powers under Section 54(1)(e) of the Act - HELD THAT - Section 54 of the Act confers power to the Prohibition Officer, i.e. Collector to cancel or suspend the licence. Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act provides that if the licence, permit, pass or authorization has been obtained through wilful misrepresentation or fraud, the same is liable for cancellation. In the case in hand, the petitioner was served with the notice and heard by the Collector before passing the order of cancellation of licence. The document, which is produced by the petitioner and which was used for the purpose of securing FL-III licence can be seen by naked eye to be a tampered one and used as genuine for the purpose of obtaining a licence under the Act. As such, prima facie it can be inferred that the petitioner has used forged document for securing the licence - The licence, if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and that too by use of a doctored document, frustrates the very claim for grant of equitable relief as the fraud vitiates the proceedings. There are no reason to cause interference at the behest of the petitioner - it is seen from the conduct of the petitioner that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court, which prompts to saddle costs of rupees five thousand on the petitioner to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur within a period of six weeks from today - The petition as such stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the cancellation of a FL-III licence under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, due to alleged fraud by the petitioner, and the subsequent appeal under Section 137 of the Act.

Cancellation of FL-III Licence:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought a stay on the cancellation of their FL-III licence after the Collector, Nagpur, cancelled it based on alleged fraud. The fraud involved obtaining the licence by misleading authorities about the legality of the structure on the property. The petitioner was accused of superimposing a building permit number on a plan to secure the liquor licence without a valid lease or tenancy agreement with the landlady.

Legal Proceedings and Evidence:
The petitioner's contention was that the licence had been operational for over a decade, and the sudden cancellation by the Collector was unjust, especially considering the landlady's awareness of the licence. The Assistant Government Pleader argued that the petitioner needed to prove the absence of fraud in obtaining the licence. The Court requested the petitioner to produce relevant documents, including the original map used for obtaining the licence.

Fraudulent Practices and Legal Observations:
Upon examination of the documents, the Court found that the petitioner had used a falsified document to obtain the FL-III licence, which led to the cancellation based on fraud under Section 54(1)(e) of the Act. The Court cited legal precedents emphasizing that fraud vitiates the basis for granting licences and justifies cancellation. The petitioner's attempt to mislead the Court resulted in the dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs amounting to rupees five thousand.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the FL-III licence was obtained through fraud, and the petitioner's actions warranted the imposition of costs. The judgment underscores the importance of transparency in obtaining licences and the consequences of fraudulent practices in regulatory matters.