A writ petition seeking to quash an order alleging change of ownership in a liquor licence without prior permission. The High Court set aside the order because it was passed 10 years after the events despite consistent fee remittance and lack of documentary evidence.
Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.32511 of 2006
M/s.HOTEL VEEYES,
No.2, Police Commissioner of Office Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.V.S.A.Ashrafali, No.76, Linghu Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001. ...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, C.M.D.A. Building, Tower -2, Gandhi Irwin Bridge, Chennai 600 008.
3.The District Collector, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai. 4.The Deputy Commissioner (Excise) Office of the Chennai Collectorate, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ or order of direction or any other Writ in the nature Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in Proc. No.P & E 2 (4) 20176/2006, dated 08.09.2006, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan
For Respondents: Mr.R.Pratap Singh,
Government Advocate for R1, 3 and 4 Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Standing Counsel for R2.
1
O R D E R
The petitioner is the legal heir of one Mr.V.S.Abdul Hussain, who had been issued licence to run a Bar in his hotel managed and run under the name and style of 'VEEYES' .
'2.The Joint Commissioner-II of this Commissionerate has inspected the above said hotel on 25.07.2006 along with Tahsildars (Flying Squad) and noticed that the hotel property was owned by one Thiru.V.S.Abdul Hussain, who has let out the hotel and bar to one Thiru A.Sabari Girison for three years on rental basis with effect from 07.06.1996 and the FL.3 licence was issued in the name of Tvl.Hotel Vee Yes, that the owner of the property Tvl.Hotel Vee Yes expired on 25.07.1997 leaving five sons as legal heirs, and has also stated that one of the legal heirs of the deceased Thiru V.S.Jamal Mohamed has applied for the renewal of FL.3 licence for the year 2006-2007 and that a perusal of this office records reveals that after the demise of the original owner of the hotel properties, Thiru.V.S.Abdul Hussain, the ownership of the Management of the Hotel and the Bar has not been changed in favour of the deceased legal heirs and
2
that enquiry reveals, that there is change of ownership in this case without obtaining prior permission of the licensing authority.'
'24. Transfer of licence, change of premises or locality. -- Licences issued under these rules shall not be sold, transferred or sub-rented without the previous permission of the licensing authority. A licence holder shall not change the premises in which he carries on business under his licence except with the previous permission of the licensing authority. Permission to shift the business during the currency of the licence outside the area in which the licence is intended to serve shall be treated as the grant of a fresh licence and all the provisions relating to the grant of a new licence shall likewise apply to granting of such permissions except those relating to payment of the licence fee and collection of security deposit with reference to rule 23'
3
R1, Mr.Sabari Girison had neither surrendered the licence nor extended the agreement. One of the Legal Heirs viz., the petitioners' brother was however seen to have been running the Bar continuously. R1 states that this constitutes abuse of the privilege granted to Sabari Girison and is a violation of Rule 24.
rkp
To
1.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, C.M.D.A. Building, Tower -2, Gandhi Irwin Bridge, Chennai 600 008.
4
+1cc to Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Advocate SR.77895
W.P.No.32511 of 2006
RSI(CO) CB(13/12/2019)
5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order passed 10 years after the alleged violation of the show-cause notice provisions without documentary support can stand.
Whether non-adherence to Rule 24 regarding change of ownership is fatal when privilege fees were consistently remitted and authorities were aware of management continuity.
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the order in Proc. No.P & E 2 (4) 20176/2006 should be allowed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Hotel Veeyes
Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation
District Collector
Deputy Commissioner (Excise)
Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
