Provisional excise licence ends on restoration of prior licence holder, with no notice requirement under the Excise Act

An FL-16 licence granted after a perceived vacancy was treated as only a provisional arrangement, not a permanent licence carrying an indefeasible right. When the earlier licence holder's cancellation was later found illegal and the licence restored, the appellant's licence came to an end by operation of law because its foundation had disappeared. In that situation, the termination was not a punitive cancellation of a subsisting licence, so Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act was not attracted and no separate notice to the appellant was required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's FL-16 licence could be treated as a permanent licence requiring notice before termination, and whether restoration of the earlier licence holder's rights rendered the appellant's licence liable to come to an end without attracting Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act.

Analysis: The cancellation order dated 3 July 1993 was passed when the earlier licensee was still holding a temporary licence and was validly understood as an order cancelling that temporary licence. Once the earlier licence holder's cancellation was held to be illegal and the licence stood restored, the grant made to the appellant, issued on the premise that a vacancy had arisen, could only operate as a provisional arrangement pending the earlier dispute. In that situation, the appellant's licence ended by operation of law when the earlier licence was restored, and the termination was not a punitive cancellation of a subsisting permanent licence. Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act was therefore not attracted, and no separate notice to the appellant was necessary.

Conclusion: The appellant's challenge failed; the licence granted to him did not confer an indefeasible permanent right and could cease on restoration of the earlier licence holder's entitlement.

---