Ashwani Mishra, J. - (1.) Dispute in the present petition relates to a licence issued in form FL-6 for retail vend of foreign liquor to respondent no.5, under the directions issued by the appellate authority, which has been confirmed with dismissal of revision filed against it.
(2.) It transpires that a foreign liquor bar was being operated at Hotel President by one late Durga Prasad Yadav. The licencee Durga Prasad Yadav died on 16.3.2013. Wife of the licencee, who is petitioner herein, moved an application for licence to be continued in her name in terms of clause (1) of the government order dated 19.7.1988. Upon such application, other heirs i.e. son of late Durga Prasad Yadav, except respondent no.5, submitted no objection before the authority in the matter of continuance of licence in the name of petitioner. The licencing authority i.e. Collector, Gorakhpur, considered the issue after an objection was filed by respondent no.5. The Collector noticed that there was a factual dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.5 with regard to their right to manage the premises in which situated the bar. Noticing such dispute, Collector rejected petitioner's application. The Collector also took note of the fact that a civil suit with regard to right of respective parties to manage the premises was also pending. During pendency of suit, it appears that an injunction order came to be granted in favour of respondent no.5 and it is admitted that he was managing the premises in which situated the bar. A First Appeal From Order was filed before this Court against the order of injunction, in which an order of stay was granted, and issue was referred to Mediation Centre. Aggrieved by this order dated 16.7.2015, passed in F.A.F.O. No.1251 of 2014, respondent no.5 filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.21216 of 2015, before the Apex Court, wherein on 3.8.2015 the interim order of High Court has been stayed. As a consequence, injunction order passed by the trial court stands revived which authorised respondent no.5 to manage the hotel. Appellate authority, in such circumstances, came to a conclusion that bar is to be operated with reference to the premises itself, and once respondent no.5 was held entitled to manage the premises, it would be appropriate for protection of public revenue to allow licence to be continued in the name of respondent no.5. It is this order passed in appeal, which got challenged in revision, rejected vide order dated 29.12.2016. Aggrieved by the two orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that licence was granted to the husband of the present petitioner and as no objection by other members of the partnership firm was filed, as such, licence is liable to be continued in the name of present petitioner. Learned counsel submits that by virtue of provisions contained under Section 78 of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910, the civil suit itself is barred and therefore any order passed therein would have no consequence. It is stated that even if respondent no.5 is managing the premises, the authorities ought to have allowed licence in favour of present petitioner and she could run the bar from any other premises.;