The Bombay High Court in the case Dattaram Govind Naik Versus State Of Goa observed and has held that when the legal heirs of the deceased license holder applied for cancellation, thus, the excise commissioner was duty-bound in order to cancel it.
The bench headed by Justice Bharat P. Deshpande in the case observed and has stated that the transfer of liquor licenses being at the discretion of the concerned authority.
In the present case, the petitioner in the plea challenged the order which is passed by the Commissioner of Excise, wherein it cancelled the liquor license for the retail sale of IMFL and CL for consumption standing in the name of the late Mr. Joaquim C. Souza Ferrao, who being the resident of Calcondem, Margao-Goa.
Therefore, the appeal was filed by petitioner against the order passed by the Commissioner of Excise; however, the Appellate Authority or Chief Secretary rejected the same appeal.
Further, the petitioner in the plea contended that in view of the partnership deed, he was being entitled to transfer the license in his name. Thus, the legal heirs of the late Joaquim C. Souza Ferrao applied for cancellation of the license with the Excise Department in the matter. Though the petitioner in the plea challenged the order in appeal, it was rejected by the Appellate Authority.
It has also been noted by the said court that the Partnership Deed nowhere permits the petitioner to apply for transfer of the liquor license in his name in the event of the death of the license holder and that the legal heirs were supposed to join as partners upon the death of the original license holder, and that in the said case the license was required to be transferred in the name of the legal heirs.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the appellate authority, in its order, has rightly observed that the petitioner is trying to mix the issues with regard to the deed of partnership with those of transfer of license under the provisions of the Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964.
The counsel, C.A. Coutinho appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, S.P. Munj represented the respondent.
