2013 (6) TMI 114 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Liquor bar license - Inclusion of the name of co-licensee in a license - substitution of the name of the petitioner in place of his deceased mother in the liquor licence - Held that - As upon the death of the mother licensee her partner being the petitioner would continue to hold the license but till the subsistence of the license the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased mother licensee have to be brought on record appears to be correct. The only condition for consideration at the time would be that if the heirs are brought on record and they become co-licensee as different from co-partners their eligibility has to be considered under the 1968 rules. In case they are eligible they shall be co-licensee with the petitioner in the place of their deceased mother and shall be governed by the 1968 Rules, in case they claim status of partner for the term of the license. Therefore, when the impugned order has actually ordered substitution/mutation of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased licensee Smt. Sumitra Devi it has not committed an error. However, a co-licensee has to be eligible and his eligibility ought to have been ascertained before passing such an order. The name of respondent no. 2 Rajesh Kumar Singh has already been directed to be made in the license. The authority is therefore required to consider whether he was an eligible person to be made as co-licensee/partner under the 1968 Rules and whether he would in any manner be entitled to be considered as partner under the 1968 Rules. The eligibility has to be and should be considered by the authority concerned forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of licensing rules regarding the inclusion of a co-licensee.
2. Application of Government Order on mutation of heirs and legal representatives.
3. Dispute over the continuation of license ownership after the death of a licensee.
4. Technical error in the revisional order and consideration of relevant dates.
5. Eligibility criteria for heirs and legal representatives to become co-licensees/partners.
6. Implementation of the impugned order and direction for timely resolution.

Interpretation of Licensing Rules:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of licensing rules concerning the inclusion of a co-licensee. The court analyzed the U.P. Licensing Under the Surcharge Fees System Rules 1968, highlighting the provisions for selecting licensees and allowing partnerships in licensed shops. It emphasized that a licensee can bring in a partner if the individual meets the eligibility criteria specified in the rules.

Application of Government Order:
The court discussed the application of a Government Order dated 19.07.1988 regarding the mutation of heirs and legal representatives of a deceased licensee. It differentiated between bringing a business partner under the 1968 Rules and the process of mutation as per the 1988 Order, emphasizing that these are distinct scenarios with specific requirements.

Dispute over License Ownership:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a license following the death of the original licensee, Smt. Sumitra Devi. The petitioner, her son, was initially included as a partner with his mother. However, after her demise, another son filed for substitution/mutation of his name, leading to legal proceedings to determine the rightful co-licensee.

Technical Error in Revisional Order:
The court noted a technical error in the revisional order, which referenced an incorrect appellate order date. Despite this error, the court found that the revisional authority's decision aligned with the 1968 Rules and the 1988 Government Order. The court advised the authority to be more diligent in future orders to avoid such technical mistakes.

Eligibility Criteria for Co-Licensees:
The judgment stressed the importance of assessing the eligibility of heirs and legal representatives before appointing them as co-licensees. It highlighted that while the impugned order correctly ordered substitution/mutation of the deceased licensee's heirs, their eligibility under the 1968 Rules must be verified before finalizing the decision.

Implementation and Timely Resolution:
The court directed the competent authority to promptly consider the eligibility of the respondent no. 2 as a co-licensee/partner. It emphasized that any observations or directions in the order were applicable only until the expiration of the current license period, urging a timely resolution of the dispute before the license term concluded.

In conclusion, the judgment provided detailed analysis and directions regarding the interpretation of licensing rules, application of government orders, resolution of ownership disputes, rectification of technical errors, assessment of eligibility criteria, and the implementation of orders for timely resolution of the legal matter.