AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule Nisi.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a retail licence holder under IL 24, as such he is authorised to sell Indian Made Foreign liquor (IMFL). He was running the business under the name and style of M/s. Sri Devi Wines, Yellamanchili. The licence was obtained in the year 1998-1999 and it was renewed for the year 1999-2000. The 4th respondent, according to the petitioner, started interfering with the business of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent issued a proceedings on 17-5-1999 wherein he showed the 4th respondent as partner of the firm for which the licence had been given to the petitioner. This order reads as under:
"In view of the representation of Sri K. V.J.A. Naidu (95%) shareholder of M/s Sri Devi Wines, IL24, Yellamanchili as per partnership deed, Sri K.V.J.A. Naidu S/o. Narasinga Rao, resident of Ganga devipeta is included as a partner with the share of 95% of M/s. Sri Devi Wines, Yellamanchili of Visakhapatnam district under Rule 39 of Andhra Pradesh IL and PL Rules, 1970".
This order has been challenged in this writ petition on the strength of Rule 39 of Andhra Pradesh IL and FL Rules, 1970.
Rule-39 reads as under:-
"39. Licensee not to declare any person to be or not to be his partner :--No licensee shall except with the prior permission of the licensing authority get any other person included as partner to his business, or get an existing partner excluded".
From bare perusal of this Rule it becomes clear that a licensee is not authorised to get any other partner included in his business except with the prior permission of the licensing authority. Conversely it would mean that, once the name of the licensee is to be changed in a licence or anybody is to be deleted or added to the licence, it can only be done at the instance of the licensee. However, in this case the respondents changed the name of the licensee on application of third party.
Respondent No.4 relies on certain agreements which according to him he had entered into with the petitioner and by which he had become a partner. That may be, or may not be true but it was not within the domain of the licensing authority to have changed the name of the licensee on application by 4th respondent. Since the licensee has been given to the petitioner he would he responsible for omissions and commissions under the Excise laws and in case the name of the licensee is changed at his back it would be difficult in future to fix the responsibility if there are omissions and commissions. The licensing authority on its own has no power to change the names of the licensees except on application of the existing licensee, however, that would not mean that if the petitioner has entered into a lawful agreement with respondent No.4 that the respondent No.4 would be remedy less. He can have appropriate remedies from appropriate Courts.
For these reasons, I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order. Liberty is given to respondent No.4 also to agitate his rights, if any, in an appropriate proceedings before an appropriate Forum. No costs.