9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 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, fru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has practised fraud. The FL-III licence came to be cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 54(1)(e) of the Act. Needless to clarify that the appeal under Section 137 of the Act preferred by the petitioner is against the said order dated 27/12/2023 passed by the Collector, Nagpur. 4) The facts necessary for deciding the petition are as under : The petitioner partnership firm by name Hotel Green City was earlier manned by two partners, namely, Pradeep Kakirwar and Kalpana Samarth, who were holding FL-III Licence No.497 approved on 21/11/2004. The configuration of the partnership firm underwent a change and Snehal Umashankar Jaiswal was inducted as a partner, which was approved by the Collector on 3/1/2005. The restaurant and FL-III ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e obtained by the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of Section 54(1)(e) of the Act as the petitioner appears to have practised fraud. The nature of fraud practised by the petitioner is that there was a sanction to a structure to be constructed on the plot in question. By superimposing Building Permit Number on a separate plan, which was drawn for the purpose of securing liquor licence under the Act, the Authority was made to understand that the structure was legal. In absence of lease or tenancy agreement between landlady and petitioner Firm, illegally licence to vend/ provide liquor was secured. 7) After the aforesaid order dated 27/12/2023 was passed by the Collector, the petitioner approached the respondent, i.e. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty respondents to the petition. He would claim that the petitioner must be put to strict proof of demonstrating that there was no fraud practised while securing licence under the Act. 10) In the above background, having regard to the objection raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, we called upon the petitioner to produce on record sanctioned map and other relevant documents. 11) Tenancy agreement dated 26/10/1999 was executed between landlady Seema Arun Mankar and Pradeep Kakirwar in relation to plot in question and house constructed thereon. It was agreed between Pradeep Kakirwar and landlady that rent of rupees four thousand shall be paid every month by Pradeep Kakirwar and he would carry on business of restaurant during te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of securing FL-III licence, thereby trying to make the Authority understand that he has a sanctioned structure. The said fact can be easily inferred from the communication dated 13/3/2012 issued by the Building Engineer of Nagpur Improvement Trust. 14) In the aforesaid background, we are prima facie satisfied that the FL-III licence issued under the Act in favour of the petitioner was obtained by practising fraud and in such an eventuality, it is always open for the Prohibition Officer to consider the complaint of the landlady for the purpose of initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the licence. 15) Perusal of the impugned order depicts that on facts, the issue as regards the lease deed was looked into in Writ Petition No.8245/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another vs. S.N. Bilgrami and others (1959 SCC OnLine SC 79). The Apex Court in para (6) of the judgment has observed thus : .... The entire scheme of control and regulation of imports by licences is on the basis that the licence is granted on a correct statement of relevant facts. That basis disappears if grant of the licence is induced by fraud or misrepresentation. Whether the licensee himself or some other party is responsible for the fraud or misrepresentation, the fact remains that in such cases the basis of the grant of licence has disappeared. It will be absolutely unreasonable that such a licence should be allowed to continue. We are therefore of opinion that the provision that licence may be cancelled, if it is found, after giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
