Judgment:
1. Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing appellants to renew the Bar licence in favour of respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Appeal as joint licencees on payment of an additional sum of Rs.10 lakhs which is obviously cost in favour of the State over and above the normal renewal fee of Rs.22.75 lakhs per year. The Bar hotel of which respondents 1 and 2 were partners, enjoyed a bar licence for the last nearly 40 years as it was issued licence in 1970 which was being periodically renewed upto 31.3.2010. However, there has been change in the partnership and in the beginning of 2009 a dispute arose between the two partners namely, respondents 1 and
2. Consequently first respondent alone submitted application for renewal of the Bar licence, though in the name of the partnership, without the signature of the joint partner namely, second respondent. Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the second respondent by letter issued to the Commissioner of Excise, objected to renewal of licence and therefore, renewal application filed by first respondent was rejected. Revision filed against Commissioner's order by the first respondent was turned down by the Government, which was challenged in the W.P. (C). However, by the time the matter was decided by this court, respondents 1 and 2 settled dispute between them and this court recorded the same and directed the Government and the Commissioner to renew the licence on payment of full renewal fee of Rs.22.75 lakhs and in addition to the same, Rs.10 lakhs for dragging the matter to the court. It is conceded that respondents 1 and 2 have already remitted Rs.22.75 lakhs and even the cost of Rs.10 lakhs ordered by this court by now. In fact, on account of failure to get the licence renewed, the Bar business could not be carried on for most part of the financial year 2009-2010 and the balance period left is only less than three months for which total amount paid by them is Rs.32.75 lakhs. We do not find any substance in the Appeal filed by the State because in principle this court upheld the order of the Commissioner declining to renew licence on request by one of the partners when the other partner opposed. However, nothing prohibits the partners from settling their dispute, though with little delay, and applying for renewal of licence which the firm was holding for around 40 years. It is not very uncommon that dispute arises among partners in partnership business and we do not find anything unusual in this case about a dispute between two partners for a brief period. However, once dispute is settled, the firm is entitled to have the licence renewed, particularly when no Excise offence or other irregularity is found against the firm disentitling it from getting the licence renewed. The technical objection raised by the State that the firm remaining defunct in business for six months will disentitle it to get the licence renewed; we feel goes against the interest of the Revenue in as much as it will have to refund immediately Rs.32.75 lakhs with no corresponding benefit to the State. By declining to renew one licence, Government is not going to achieve the often claimed object of reducing liquor consumption in the State. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Consequently the same is dismissed directing the Commissioner to issue licence, if payments are made and other formalities are complied with, within a period of one week from the date of production of copy of this judgment.