Liquor licence fraud: HC tells excise department to hold probe

It was contended that the legal heirs of S Jayashankar were ignorant of law or the Rules with regard to the licence and hence there was a delay of 22 years

The High Court of Karnataka has directed the Excise department to conduct further inquiry and pass necessary orders, based on a preliminary enquiry report submitted by the police in a retail liquor shop license fraud case.

The police report, based on the interim direction issued by the high court, said that the transfer of licence itself was a fraud played by the production of fabricated records and impersonation.

The police report stated that S Jayashankar, operating a CL-2 license at Venkateshapura Main Road in Bengaluru, had died on February 9, 1997. On June 30, 1997, a day before the commencement of the excise year 1997-98, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise passed an order under Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1997, transferring the licence in favour of one Savitha on fabricated records produced by an anonymous person posing as S Jayashankar.

It was contended that the legal heirs of S Jayashankar were ignorant of the law or the Rules with regard to the licence and hence there was a delay of 22 years. Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that since the preliminary enquiry report clearly mentions that the transfer of licence itself is a fraud played by the production of fabricated records and impersonation, the same would go to the root of the matter.

“It is trite law that fraud vitiates every solemn act performed and can be invoked at any point in time. If fraud, impersonation and fabrication of records are the contents of the allegation for transfer of licence, delay in approaching the Court can hardly be said to be a circumstance that would militate against the petitioners.

The preliminary investigation report of the Police shows that there has been a fraud. Therefore, it is for the Department to, now, consider the report that is submitted and initiate such steps to steer clear of the controversy, as there are seriously disputed questions of fact which have to be thrashed out after further verification of records and after affording the opportunity to everyone who would become affected by any order that would be passed,” the court said.