TMI Blog1958 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was clear that the said heirs had no objection to the management of the tea estate continuing in the hands of the petitioner. It is further stated by the petitioner that the licence for manufacturing tea in the said tea estate was extended from time to time for short periods only and, as such, he continued to Manufacture tea on the strength of the permission granted by the Central Excise authorities. The petitioner again applied for renewal of the licence in order to carry on the business, as required by law. The Central Excise Superintendent, by his order dated 10th September, 1957 directed that the petitioner might be allowed to manufacture tea in the Topia Factory, but there could be no clearance until further orders. In a letter from the authority concerned, it was stated that clearance could not be allowed until dispute was settled between the petitioner and the other co-sharers. This was with reference to an objection at one stage raised by Musstt. Zabeda Khatun, the petitioner's sister and one of the co-sharers, to the grant of a licence to the petitioner, but the fact is that subsequently this objection was withdrawn both by a telegram and a confirmatory letter, dated 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and if more than one person claiming to be the heirs to the deceased, apply for the grant of a fresh licence for the same premises, the licence shall be granted to the person who in the opinion of the licensing authority, is in actual possession of the said premises. There is also a proviso incorporated in the rule which says that the grant of the licence to such person shall not prejudice the rights of any other person over the licensed business or the licensed premises, to which such person may be lawfully entitled. In this case, the licence was originally in the name of the father, though it does not appear to be seriously disputed that even in the life time of the father, the petitioner had been managing the tea estate. After the death of the father, it is also not disputed that the petitioner has been managing the tea estate and is in actual possession of the premises. It is, therefore, contended that, on the terms of the rule, even if more than one person claiming to be heir to the deceased, had applied for the grant of a fresh licence for the said premises, the authorities concerned had to grant a licence to the person in actual possession. The direction to grant the licen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is fulfilling other legal requisites e.g. the execution of the security bond, payment of fees etc. The proviso dose not suggest that although, as a person in actual possession, the licence for manufacturing tea should be given to the petitioner, yet it may be open to the Excise authorities to put the condition that he shall not be allowed to clear the same for the so called purpose of safeguarding the interest of the other heirs interested in the property, if any. All that the proviso means is that the grant of a licence by the licensing authorities to the person in actual possession of the said premises, will not in any manner affect prejudicially the right of the person who may be ultimately found to be entitled to the premises. The Excise authorities have nothing to do with any dispute between the heirs of a deceased license inter se, so long as they grant, the licence to the heir in 'actual possession' of the premises. This is so for obvious reasons, because if these authorities were to embark upon an enquiry into such disputes between the heirs or were to hold up the manufacturing or clearance processes of the goods manufactured until disputes between them were settled, they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judice the rights of any other person over the licensed business, or, in other words, he contends that the issue of a licence, as contemplated by the said sub-rule, is permissible only when it does not effect adversely the interest of any other person interested in the licensed business. My Lord the Chief Justice has given an interpretation as to what this proviso is for, and I fully agree that it only means that the interest of other persons will remain intact or will not be adversely affected by the issue of a licence in favour of one of the persons who is found to be in actual possession of the business or the premises. Even assuming, for arguments sake, that Mr. Medhi's contention is correct that the issue of a licence shall be subject to the examination of this aspect, namely, as to whether anybody else would be adversely effected by the issue of the licence, this contention cannot be entertained at a stage after the licence has been issued. Therefore, this contention is wrong on two grounds, namely,— that the proviso does not really mean that under no circumstances licence can be issued when there is dispute between interested parties over the concerned that needs a licence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
