2017 (1) TMI 190 - HC - Indian Laws

Renewal of Indian Made Foreign Liquor/Foreign Liquor Bar License rejected - non production of lease deed from the owner of the premises - Held that - n view of the fact that there were two lease agreements submitted to the competent authority, which are having different clauses regarding their continuation of renewal, all the more necessary for the competent authority to insist on production of original lease agreement and the petitioner cannot refuse to produce the documents as required by the respondent authorities for renewal of the application. Since the petitioner did not produce relevant documents, I do not see any error in rejecting the application for renewal. However, since learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise fairly submits that the competent authority would consider the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal even now, if all the relevant documents are submitted by him, while upholding the decision as impugned in the Writ Petition, the petitioner is permitted to submit all the relevant documents as desired by the competent authority in the impugned proceedings and if such documents are submitted, the competent authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for renewal and take appropriate decision. Having regard to the rival claims and two different lease agreements are available with the competent authority, in the interests of justice, it is also necessary to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as owner of the property, before the competent authority arises at a conclusion regarding renewal or otherwise of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. As and when the relevant documents are submitted by the petitioner, the competent authority shall fix a date for personal hearing of the petitioner as well as the owner of the premises by an advance notice, and in consideration of the respective submissions, decision be taken and communicated to the petitioner with reference to his renewal application within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of documents by the petitioner.

Issues involved:
1. Renewal of Indian Made Foreign Liquor/Foreign Liquor Bar License.
2. Demand for production of lease deed for the premises.
3. Interpretation of lease agreement clauses.
4. Compliance with Andhra Pradesh Excise Rules for license renewal.
5. Submission of relevant documents for renewal application.
6. Access to premises for acquiring necessary documents.
7. Opportunity of hearing for both petitioner and owner of the property.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner was granted a liquor license which required renewal, but the competent authority rejected the renewal application citing reasons. The issue revolved around the scope of renewal and continuous correspondence regarding the renewal process.

2. The main argument was about the demand for a lease deed from the premises owner for the year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that as per the existing lease agreement from 2013, renewal was at their option, and a fresh lease deed was unnecessary due to ongoing lease operations. However, the respondent insisted on the submission of the original lease deed for verification.

3. The Government Pleader highlighted discrepancies in the lease agreements submitted by the petitioner, emphasizing the need for the original lease deed for verification. The competent authority required specific documents for processing the application, which were not provided by the petitioner.

4. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the communication and renewal aspects of the lease agreement due to an ongoing legal dispute between the parties regarding lease renewal and payments.

5. Reference was made to previous court decisions regarding the application of rules for obtaining a fresh license, which equally applied to the renewal process. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the Andhra Pradesh Excise Rules for license renewal.

6. Due to conflicting lease agreements submitted, the court upheld the rejection of the renewal application for not providing the necessary documents. However, the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit all required documents for reconsideration by the competent authority.

7. The petitioner faced difficulty accessing relevant documents locked in the premises. The court allowed the petitioner to file an affidavit undertaking to use the premises only for document retrieval purposes, with permission from the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent.

8. To ensure justice and fair consideration, the court directed a hearing for both the petitioner and the property owner before the competent authority makes a decision on the lease renewal. The authority was instructed to communicate the decision within two weeks of document submission.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with directions for document submission, a hearing, and consideration of the renewal application, emphasizing compliance with lease agreements and relevant rules for license renewal.

← Previous Next →