Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a FL-II and CL-III liquor license originally granted in 1973 to Prabhakar Wabale, who later entered into a partnership at will with Respondent No.5, Vitthal Phadke, in 1984 to run a wine shop. The license always remained in Wabale’s name. In 1993, Wabale dissolved the partnership, leading to prolonged litigation. The Collector suspended the license, and after multiple rounds before the Collector, Commissioner, Minister, High Court, and Supreme Court, it was repeatedly held that Respondent No.5 had no independent right to the license. In the latest round, the Minister, in a revision, allowed Respondent No.5’s plea and directed the deletion of the petitioner’s name, substituting it with Respondent No.5’s. The petitioner, through legal representatives after the original licensee’s death, challenged this order via writ petition. The petitioner argued that the license was personal, non-transferable, and that partnership dissolution ended any interest of the ex-partner. Respondent No.5 contended that the license was a partnership asset and relied on a Supreme Court direction for a fresh decision uninfluenced by earlier orders. The court, after examining the history, ruled that the license was never partnership property; it remained personal to the original grantee. The earlier orders of the High Court and Supreme Court, which held that Respondent No.5 had no right, were binding. The Minister’s order was set aside as being contrary to law and judicial precedents. The writ petition was allowed, and the license was to continue in the petitioner’s name.
Headnote
A) Excise Law - Transferability of License - Personal Nature of License - Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, Rule 40(1) - The license granted under the Rules is personal to the named licensee and non-transferable; a partner who joins later acquires no independent right to the license, which does not become a partnership asset. Held that the license remained the property of the original grantee, and the Minister's order directing substitution was illegal. (Paras 19-20)
B) Partnership Law - Dissolution of Partnership - Effect on License - When a partnership at will is dissolved by notice, the partnership business ends, and a former partner has no right to continue operating under the partner's personal license. Held that the dissolution extinguished any interest Respondent No.5 might have had in the business, but not in the license itself. (Paras 19-20)
C) Judicial Precedent - Binding Effect of Previous Orders - The Minister cannot ignore or override findings of the High Court and Supreme Court in earlier rounds between the same parties. Held that the impugned order was in defiance of binding judicial pronouncements. (Para 19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Respondent No.5, as a former partner, has any right to have the liquor license issued in his name after dissolution of the partnership.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 30th July 2019 passed by the Minister of State, Excise and Drugs Department was quashed and set aside. The license was to remain in the name of the petitioner.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- license is personal and non-transferable
- partnership at will dissolution ends partner's rights
- earlier judicial orders bind administrative authorities
- Minister cannot ignore High Court and Supreme Court findings
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (06) 5
WRIT PETITION NO. 14861 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8987 OF 2021
Citation not available, 2025:BHC-AUG:15497
Mr. Arun Longani, Mr. S. Mukherzee, Mr. Yogesh Kumar for petitioner; Mr. K. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent No.1 to 4; Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ashwini Deshmukh i/by Mr. S. V. Natu for Respondent No.5
Prabhakar Mohiniraj Wabale (now deceased) through LR Smt. Vimalbai Prabhakar Wabale
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. and Vitthal Janardhan Phadke
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging order of Minister of State Excise and Drugs Department allowing a former partner to obtain a liquor license in his name after dissolution of partnership.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of Minister's order dated 30-07-2019 and restoration of orders of Collector and Commissioner holding license exclusively in petitioner's name.
Filing Reason
The Minister reversed concurrent findings and directed deletion of petitioner's name from license and substitution with Respondent No.5's name, contrary to earlier High Court and Supreme Court orders.
Previous Decisions
Collector suspended license and later ordered deletion of Respondent No.5's name; Commissioner dismissed Respondent No.5's appeal; Minister allowed revision; in earlier rounds, High Court and Supreme Court held Respondent No.5 had no independent right to license.
Issues
Whether a former partner, after dissolution of a partnership at will, has any right to claim a liquor license that was granted in the name of the other partner.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: License is personal and non-transferable; never became partnership property; dissolution ends any interest; earlier High Court and Supreme Court orders are binding; arbitration award confirms dissolution.
Respondent No.5: License is a partnership asset; petitioner applied to add Respondent No.5's name earlier; Supreme Court directed fresh decision uninfluenced by earlier orders; petitioner incapable of running business; two arbitration appeals pending.
State supported Minister's order.
Ratio Decidendi
A liquor license granted under the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 is personal to the named licensee and non-transferable. A partnership entered into for conducting business under such license does not convert the license into partnership property. On dissolution of the partnership at will, the former partner acquires no right to claim the license. The Minister cannot ignore binding findings of the High Court and Supreme Court in earlier rounds.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question involved in this petition is as to whether the Respondent No.5 has any right to have license in his name?. Merely because he happened to be partner for some time.
By looking to the orders passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, it is clearly seen that this Court in Writ Petition as well as in LPA clearly held that the Respondent No.5 had no right to continue with the business. The said orders are not disturbed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in both the rounds.
Procedural History
On 21-12-1973, FL-II and CL-III license granted to Prabhakar Wabale. Partnership with Respondent No.5 formed on 21-11-1984, renewed on 28-05-1992. License always in Wabale’s name. Dissolution notice issued on 23-12-1993. Collector suspended license on 27-03-2000. Commissioner rejected Respondent No.5’s appeal on 31-08-2000. Minister allowed revision on 30-06-2001. Petitioner’s WP No.4308/2001 allowed on 23-10-2001. Respondent No.5’s LPA No.51/2002 allowed continuation of business on 07-02-2003. Division Bench in review held Respondent No.5 had no independent right to license. SLP dismissed. Arbitration award in favour of petitioner on 17-03-2010, District Judge confirmed dissolution. Collector suspended license again on 31-03-2012. High Court in WP No.4914/2012 directed Collector to decide within four weeks. LPA No.146/2012 directed license to be retained in petitioner’s name. Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.13990-13991/2013 directed Collector to take fresh decision. Collector on 31-12-2016 held Respondent No.5 cannot have license; allowed continuation till 31-03-2017. Commissioner dismissed appeal on 17-02-2018. Minister, in revision, passed impugned order on 30-07-2019 directing license in Respondent No.5’s name. Original petitioner died on 04-03-2015; legal representative substituted. Writ petition filed challenging Minister’s order.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953: Rule 40(1)
