Fraudulent licence procurement defeats writ relief against cancellation under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.

Writ interference was refused against cancellation of an FL-III licence under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, because the licence was prima facie obtained on a false premise. The Court found that the document used to secure the licence appeared tampered with and was used to create the impression of a duly sanctioned structure, while the tenancy arrangement did not show authority to obtain or operate the licence. Applying Section 54(1)(e), the Court treated wilful misrepresentation or fraud as a valid ground for cancellation and held that a licence obtained by fraud does not attract equitable interference. The challenge to cancellation therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction against cancellation of the FL-III licence on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud and wilful misrepresentation under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.

Analysis: The petitioner produced a document used to obtain the FL-III licence, and the Court found, prima facie, that the document was tampered with and had been used to create the impression that the structure was duly sanctioned. The tenancy arrangement did not disclose authority to obtain or operate the licence, and the material produced by the petitioner did not dispel the finding that the licence had been secured by fraud. Section 54(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 empowers cancellation where a licence has been obtained through wilful misrepresentation or fraud. Applying that principle, the Court held that a licence obtained on a false premise does not merit equitable interference.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted, and the challenge to the cancellation of the licence failed.

---