Liquor licence rights stay with the original applicant; later unregistered partnership claims cannot justify administrative interference.

A liquor licence issued on an application made by one person remained vested in that applicant, and an alleged later partnership deed could not create an independent enforceable right for private respondents, especially where the deed referred to a different business name and the firm was unregistered. The court noted that mere affixing of photographs did not make the respondents co-applicants or partners in the original licence application, and Section 69 of the Partnership Act barred their claim. It also held that the Excise and Taxation Officer acted without jurisdiction in sending a restraining letter to the police on the basis of their complaint, making the communication an unjustified interference with the licensed business.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the liquor licence and business rights vested only in the petitioner, or whether the private respondents could claim an independent right on the basis of an alleged partnership deed executed after the licence application. (ii) Whether the Excise and Taxation Officer had jurisdiction to send the letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police restraining the petitioner from carrying on the licensed business.

Issue (i): Whether the liquor licence and business rights vested only in the petitioner, or whether the private respondents could claim an independent right on the basis of an alleged partnership deed executed after the licence application.

Analysis: The application for licence was moved by the petitioner alone, and the licences were issued in the name of the concern under which he applied. The alleged partnership deed was dated later and referred to a different business name. The Court held that the mere affixing of photographs did not make the private respondents applicants or partners in the original licence application. It further held that the private respondents could not assert enforceable rights from an unregistered firm in view of the disabilities flowing from Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932.

Conclusion: The licence and liability for the licensed business remained with the petitioner, and the private respondents had no independent right to interfere with it.

Issue (ii): Whether the Excise and Taxation Officer had jurisdiction to send the letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police restraining the petitioner from carrying on the licensed business.

Analysis: The Court found that the departmental relationship was with the petitioner's licensed concern and not with the private respondents. The impugned communication was issued on their complaint, without lawful basis, and was held to have been sent for extraneous reasons and in excess of authority. The Court also treated the conduct as unjustified interference with the petitioner's business rights.

Conclusion: The letter dated 30.10.2015 was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned departmental letter was set aside, and the petitioner's right to carry on the licensed business was protected.

Ratio Decidendi: Rights under a liquor licence issued on a specific application cannot be displaced by an alleged later unregistered partnership arrangement, and an administrative authority cannot interfere with the licensed business on the basis of such a claim without lawful jurisdiction.

---