20 June 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A writ petition challenging a judgment and order dated July 30, 2019, issued by the Hon’ble Minister, Excise and Drugs Department, Mumbai. The Minister's order had favored Respondent No. 5, granting him the right to an FL-II and CL-III liquor license, thereby overturning previous decisions by the Collector and the Commissioner of the Excise Department.

The core of the dispute revolves around an FL-II and CL-III license initially granted to the petitioner's deceased father, Prabhakar Wabale, on December 21, 1973. While the license remained in his name, a partnership agreement was formed with Respondent No. 5 in 1984 (and re-executed in 1992) to operate the business under "M/s. Kailas Wines." The petitioner later sought to dissolve this partnership in 1993.

A prolonged legal battle ensued, involving the Collector, Commissioner, Hon'ble Minister, the High Court (through writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals), and the Supreme Court (through Special Leave Petitions). Throughout multiple rounds of litigation, the High Court consistently held that Respondent No. 5 had no independent right to the license, and that the original grantee (Prabhakar Wabale, and subsequently the petitioner) was entitled to apply for its renewal. The Supreme Court, while directing the Collector to make a fresh decision uninfluenced by earlier High Court observations, did not disturb the High Court's findings regarding Respondent No. 5's lack of independent right. An arbitration award in 2010 also favored the petitioner by declaring the partnership dissolved.

Despite these rulings, the Hon’ble Minister, in the impugned order, directed the deletion of the petitioner's name and the continuation of the license in Respondent No. 5's name, reasoning that capital brought by a partner becomes partnership property, and thus every partner has a right over it.

The High Court, after hearing arguments from all sides, thoroughly reviewed the history of the case and applicable rules. It highlighted Rule 40(1) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, which stipulates that for a partnership's name to be recognized in a license, an application must be made to the Collector before the license is granted, or if after, the Collector must agree to alter it. The court found that the license was never granted or renewed in the name of the partnership firm, but remained solely in the individual name of Prabhakar Wabale. The court distinguished this case from others where the license was explicitly a partnership asset or converted into one.

The court concluded that the license was not a property of the partnership firm, which was solely for running the business. The Collector and Commissioner had rightly determined that Respondent No. 5 had no right to the license after the partnership's dissolution. The Minister's order was deemed to have disregarded the clear observations made by the High Court and the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the Minister's order, and declared that Respondent No. 5 has no right to the license. The petitioner is now entitled to apply for and obtain the renewal of the license in accordance with the law. The court also granted a four-week stay on its order's effect and operation.