Surviving partner may continue a liquor licence, but heirs' substitution still requires separate eligibility scrutiny.

A surviving partner may continue an FL-6 liquor licence for the remaining licence period where a valid partnership exists, while the deceased licensee's heirs may be considered for substitution under the relevant Government Order as a distinct matter. However, any proposed co-licensee or substituted person must independently satisfy the eligibility conditions under the U.P. Licensing Under the Surcharge Fees System Rules, 1968, and that scrutiny cannot be skipped before mutation is ordered. The impugned order was permitted to operate, subject to the competent authority examining eligibility and completing the exercise within the life of the existing licence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, on the death of an FL-6 licensee, the surviving partner could continue the licence and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased licensee could be brought on record under the Government Order dated 19.07.1988; (ii) whether the authority was required to examine the eligibility of the proposed co-licensee under the U.P. Licensing Under the Surcharge Fees System Rules, 1968 before directing mutation.

Issue (i): whether, on the death of an FL-6 licensee, the surviving partner could continue the licence and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased licensee could be brought on record under the Government Order dated 19.07.1988.

Analysis: The licensing rules contemplate continuation of a licence by a surviving partner where a valid partnership exists. The Government Order dated 19.07.1988 deals with a different situation, namely mutation of the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased FL-6 or FL-7 licensee. The two situations are distinct and cannot be treated as the same.

Conclusion: The surviving partner could continue for the remaining currency of the licence, and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased licensee could be considered for substitution under the Government Order.

Issue (ii): whether the authority was required to examine the eligibility of the proposed co-licensee under the U.P. Licensing Under the Surcharge Fees System Rules, 1968 before directing mutation.

Analysis: Even where mutation of heirs is permissible, any person who is to be brought on record as a co-licensee or partner must satisfy the eligibility requirements under the 1968 Rules. The impugned order proceeded on substitution, but the question of eligibility was not separately examined.

Conclusion: Eligibility ought to have been considered by the competent authority before or at the time of passing the mutation order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not interfered with, and the impugned order was allowed to operate with directions to the competent authority to examine eligibility and complete the matter within the life of the existing licence.

Ratio Decidendi: A surviving partner may continue a liquor licence for the balance period, but substitution of the deceased licensee's heirs under the governing order remains subject to independent scrutiny of their eligibility under the applicable licensing rules.

---