9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition is being decided today itself. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2010 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) whereby the Special Secretary (Excise) Government of U.P. in a Revision No. 17 of 2010 has directed the inclusion of the name of Rajesh Kumar Singh (respondent no. 2) as a co-licensee along with the petitioner. It is not disputed by the parties that license for vend of liquor under FL-6 is granted for a period of one year which expires on 31st March of each year whereafter fresh license has to be issued or renewal of the earlier license is granted. Learned counsel for the parties have raised various submissions in support of their case but before appreciating the same it would be necessary to bring out the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner was brought in as a partner with his mother. During these proceedings the other three sons of the original licensee had given no objection for bringing Kamlesh Kumar Singh as partner of his mother in the license. However, the mother namely Smt. Sumitra Devi died on 5.5.2008 after the renewal of the license of the year 2008-09. It appears from the record that during subsequent years Kamlesh Kumar Singh who was partner with his deceased mother obtained renewal of the license from time to time. The dispute appears to have arisen when the respondent no. 2 Rajesh Kumar Singh the other son filed an application for substitution/mutation of his name whereafter the proceedings have started. Under the order dated 29.1.2007 the Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egal representatives of the deceased licensee cannot be confused with the provisions of 1968 rules relating to partnership in license and survivorship of a partner. Consequently, the view was taken under the impugned order that 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order challenged before it. A slipshod attitude in passing orders in exercising statutory power is dereliction of duty. It is true that the period of license is expiring on 31st March 2011 and therefore the substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased licensee Smt. Sumitra Devi can only be done for the license period in accordance with the Government Order dated 19th July 1988 however to enable such substituted heirs to be partners in the license the consideration of their eligibility under the 1968 Rules would be required which has not been done under the impugned order. According to learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 the impugned order has already been implemented and mutation of the name of respondent no. 2 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
