Nupur Singh @ Nupur Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary Excise, State of

Uttarakhand in Excise Revision No.220 of 2012, by which it has set aside the order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the Excise Commissioner,

Uttarakhand, by which FL-6 licence has been granted in favour of the petitioner on the basis that the earlier licence given to her husband and it will be

given to his wife, in terms of the Government Order dated 19.07.1988. There is no mention in the said Government Order that the licence can also be

given to the sisters.

Aggrieved by the order of the cancellation dated 17.05.2013, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court challenging the said

order dated 17.05.2013.

Brief facts of the case are that a piece of land was purchased by Shri Yudhisthir Singh way back in the year 1959, on which later a hotel called

“Motel Polaris†was constructed in the year 1961-1962, and since then the hotel was being run on the said place. In the Motel, a bar was also

being run for which a separate licence was initially taken by Shri Yudhisthir Singh. Shri Yudhisthir Singh and his wife Smt. Madhu Singh had four

children, i.e. three daughters, namely, Shalini Prem, Shivani and Sunaina and one son Dhruv Singh. After the death of Shri Yudhisthir Singh in the year

1980, the motel was being run by his widow Smt. Madhu Singh and his son Shri Dhruv Singh.

The parties are related to each other as indicated by the subjoined pedigree given below:-

Yudhisthir Singh Wife (Smt. Madhu Singh)

_____________________________________________________

Shalini Prem Shivani Sunaina Dhruv Singh â€" Nupur Singh (wife)

(Daughter) (Daughter) (Daughter) (Son)

Namya

(daughter)

Shri Yudhisthir Singh passed away in the year 1980 and his wife Smt. Madhu Singh later passed away on 15.03.1999. Admittedly, the Motel was

being run by their son Dhruv Singh, who also had the bar licence from the Excise Department in his favour, at the relevant point of time. Dhruv Singh

was married to Nupur Singh (the present petitioner). Dhruv Singh died on 18.08.2012, and after his death a dispute arose regarding the property

between the petitioner on the one hand and the three sisters of the deceased (Dhruv Singh) on the other.

In the year 2012, a suit was filed by Shalini Prem (one of the three sisters) for partition of the property i.e. Motel Polaris, which was registered as

Suit No. 158 of 2012 “Shalini Prem Vs. Nupur Singh and othersâ€, in which she made her two sisters as defendant nos. 3 and 4 respectively and

her sister-in-law Nupur Singh (i.e. the present petitioner) as defendant no. 1 and the minor daughter of Nupur Singh as defendant no.2. The contention

of the plaintiff was that the property which was purchased by Shri Yudhisthir Singh in the year 1959, on which the hotel called “Motel Polarisâ€

was constructed in the year 1962 has to be divided in four equal shares between the three sisters and the petitioner Nupur Singh i.e. her sister-in-law.

The said suit was ultimately decreed by the court below on 27.05.2016 and the court below held that the total property shall be divided equally in four

parts i.e. 1/4 share each to all the three sisters, namely, Shalini Prem, Shivani and Sunaina and remaining 1/4 part to the petitioner. The decree was

challenged by the petitioner in the first appeal being FA No.61 of 2016 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2019, upholding the

decree of the lower court.

Now the admitted fact is that the property is to be equally divided amongst three sisters and the petitioner and the decree of the court below has to

be executed.

Now since the FL-6 licence granted in favour of the petitioner by the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand has been cancelled by the Principal

Secretary Excise, State of Uttarakhand in Excise Revision No. 220 of 2012, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

In view of this Court, the decision of the State Government cannot be sustained inasmuch as the only reason given in the impugned order dated

17.05.2013 is that though the licence has to be given in favour of the petitioner, but since she is not in the physical possession of the property and there

is a dispute in the property between the parties, it cannot be given in her favour. This order cannot be sustained under the present facts of the case,

inasmuch as the dispute stands decided, as of now, in term of the decision of this Court dated 12.09.2019.

The writ petition is therefore allowed. The order dated 17.05.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the Excise

Department, while considering the grant of licence in favour of the petitioner shall ensure that the petitioner fulfills all the prescribed norms under the

law, required for running a bar in the premises. The sisters have a claim on the property but no claim on the bar licence. The claim to get the bar

licence is of the petitioner subject to her fulfilling the general mandatory conditions of the Excise Department and the law, in such matters.