Wilful adulteration under liquor licence rules requires proof linking the licensee to the act, plus fair opportunity to

A finding of wilful adulteration under Rule 300 could not rest on the mere presence of deteriorated liquor in the premises without evidence linking the licensee to the act. The authorities also could not rely on alleged tampering signs that were not part of the original inspection material, because new adverse material must be disclosed and met before it is used against a party. On that basis, the cancellation and appellate orders were unsustainable, and the proceedings were vitiated by an erroneous presumption, lack of supporting evidence, and breach of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the liquor licence under Rule 300 was sustainable on the basis of the materials on record, and whether the proceedings were vitiated for want of evidence and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: Rule 300 prohibits wilful adulteration or causing deterioration of intoxicants, and the charge against the licensee was of deliberate adulteration. The material relied upon by the authorities did not establish that the licensee himself adulterated the liquor, and the conclusion was instead reached by drawing an impermissible presumption from the presence of deteriorated bottles in the shop. The later reliance on alleged signs of tampering was not part of the original inspection memo or report, and no opportunity was given to the licensee to meet that new adverse material. The High Court was therefore justified in interfering by certiorari where the finding rested on an incorrect presumption, absence of supporting evidence, and violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The cancellation order and the appellate order were unsustainable and were rightly quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the licence cancellation could not stand on the evidence relied upon, and the proceedings were vitiated by an erroneous presumption and denial of fair opportunity.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of wilful adulteration under Rule 300 cannot be sustained on mere presence of adulterated liquor in the premises without evidence connecting the licensee to the act, and new adverse material cannot be used against a party without affording an opportunity to explain it.

---