Ministerial order on liquor licence dispute quashed for ignoring concurrent findings and misdirecting the forum for decision.

The Bombay High Court held that the Minister could not set aside concurrent findings of the Collector and Commissioner without examining their merits. The dispute concerned deletion of a partner's name from a foreign liquor licence, and the Court noted that the issue fell within the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, rather than requiring prior civil court adjudication. Because the impugned order ignored the relevant factual findings, including the conclusion that the partnership had not been lawfully dissolved, it was unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed, the Minister's order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Minister could set aside the concurrent orders of the Collector and the Commissioner without dealing with the merits of the findings recorded below, and whether the dispute regarding deletion of a partner's name from the licence had to be decided by the civil court or under the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953.

Analysis: The proceedings fell within Section 40(1A) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, which empowered the Collector to consider whether a recognised partner could withdraw and have his name deleted from the licence. The authorities below had concurrently found that the partnership had not been lawfully dissolved. The Minister, instead of addressing those findings on merits, declined to examine the dispute on the erroneous view that it should be adjudicated by the civil court. As the impugned order did not deal with the relevant findings and legal basis of the earlier orders, it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, the Minister's order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---