9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtnership firm, of which "a" and "b" are the partners. The said firm is said to be holding a FL-III licence, which is attached to a restaurant. 3) The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondent to decide the stay application dated 3/1/2024, which was moved along with Appeal No.4/2024 preferred under Section 137 of the Act. The petitioner, by way of interim relief, has sought stay to the order dated 27/12/2023 passed by the Collector, Nagpur - Prohibition Officer whereby objection of the land owner in relation to operation of FL-III licence came to be accepted after having noticed that the petitioner 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 cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jection stating that she never permitted either creation of partnership firm or running a liquor Bar in the premises in question under the Act. The said notice was resisted by Pradeep Kakirwar vide reply dated 22/8/2011. 6) In the aforesaid background, alleging that the licence was obtained illegally, an objection was lodged by the landlady with the Collector, Nagpur, who is a Prohibition Officer under the Act. The Prohibition Officer thereafter issued notice to the petitioner and after hearing the respective parties, vide reasoned order dated 27/12/2023 cancelled the licence by observing that the FL-III licence obtained by the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of Section 54(1)(e) of the Act as the petitioner appears to hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd as such, interim relief needs to be extended with direction to the respondent to decide the appeal. He would further urge that a civil dispute is pending before a competent civil Court. 9) As against above, Shri Ghogare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent, would strenuously urge that once finding of fraud being practised by the petitioner is recorded by the Collector, this Court should be slow in exercising extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner intentionally has not joined the Prohibition Officer, i.e. Collector and the landlady as party respondents to the petition. He would claim that the petitioner must be put to strict proof of demonstrating that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner, this Court called upon the learned Counsel for the petitioner to produce the original map, which is produced as document no.6 along with pursis dated 12/1/2024, which map was used for getting the FL-III licence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the map produced as document no.6 along with pursis dated 12/1/2024 is not a sanctioned one and only Building Permit No. CS/6672/21155 dated 11/4/2001 is used for the purpose of demonstrating that the property is regular. 13) We can infer on perusal of the said map that the petitioner had produced a false document for the purpose of securing FL-III licence, thereby trying to make the Authority understand that he has a sanctioned structure. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, in our opinion, frustrates the very claim for grant of equitable relief as the fraud vitiates the proceedings. 17) In support of the aforesaid observations, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of FEDCO (P) Ltd. and another vs. S.N. Bilgrami and others (1959 SCC OnLine SC 79). The Apex Court in para (6) of the judgment has observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which the exemption benefit was availed of by the appellant(s) (as buyers of the forged/fake DEPB licenses/Scripps) were found to be forged one and it was found that the DEPB licenses/Scripps were not issued at all. A fraud was played and the exemption benefit was availed on such forged/fake DEPB licenses/Scripps. 16) In that view of the matter and on the principle that fraud vitiates everything and such forged/fake DEPB licenses/Scripps are void ab initio, it cannot be said that the Department acted illegally in invoking the extended period of limitation. In the facts and circumstances, the Department was absolutely justified in invoking the extended period of limitation." 19) In the wake of above, we hardly see any reason to caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
