“Order Vitiated by Fraud Must Be Recalled”: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Liquor License Transfer Based on Forged Aadhaar, Declares Collector’s Action Lawful Despite Absence of Review Power
Safiya Malik
In a significant judgment pronounced by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar set aside a fraudulent transfer of an FL-II liquor license. The Court found that key documents presented to affect the license transfer were forged and fabricated, thereby vitiating the entire transaction. The Court stated that the Collector of Pune was within his authority to recall the license transfer order, notwithstanding the lack of an explicit review power under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and propriety of an order passed by the Revisional Authority (Respondent No.1) confirming the Appellate Authority's order (Respondent No.2), which had set aside the Collector of Pune's decision (Respondent No.3) to cancel the transfer of an FL-II license to Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Petitioner No.1, Ramesh Bapurao Padmawar, was the lawful holder of an FL-II license for "Venus Wine" in Chandrapur District. Following the district's declaration as a "Dry District" by the Government of Maharashtra through its notification dated 10 March 2015, petitioner No.1 applied to transfer his license to Pune. Approval for the transfer was granted by the government via communication dated 18 July 2018.
Due to his residence in Chandrapur and inability to personally manage the Pune operations, petitioner No.1 executed a Power of Attorney in favor of Vyankatesh Kotalwar. The petitioners alleged that Kotalwar exploited this authority to fraudulently transfer the license to Respondents 4 and 5 by impersonating petitioner No.1 and submitting forged documents, including an Aadhaar card with the correct personal details but an altered photograph.
Petitioners alleged that the fraud extended to a second transfer from Kalyani Nagar to Sanaswadi, Pune, where the fraudulent impersonation continued. Furthermore, they claimed that Vyankatesh Kotalwar misappropriated Rs. 90,00,000 from the petitioner’s business account.
Upon learning of these actions, petitioner No.1 filed a complaint on 4 July 2023 with the State Excise Department, leading to an inquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of State Excise. Petitioner No.1 also obtained documents through an RTI application, which led to the filing of an FIR (C.R. No.276 of 2023) against Respondents 4 and 5 and others under IPC Sections 417, 419, 465, 467, 468, and 34.
Following the inquiry, the Deputy Superintendent submitted a report recommending cancellation of the license issued to Respondents 4 and 5 and restoration in favor of petitioner No.1. The Collector of Pune, on 5 April 2024, acted on this report by suspending the license and directing its restoration to petitioner No.1, along with initiating criminal proceedings against Respondents 4 and 5.
Respondents 4 and 5 filed a writ petition which was later withdrawn, and subsequently an appeal (No.150 of 2023) before the Commissioner of State Excise. The appeal was allowed, and the Collector's order was set aside. Petitioners then filed a revision before the State Government, which was also dismissed.
The petitioners, therefore, approached the High Court, asserting that the documents relied on by Respondents 4 and 5 were fraudulent. They submitted that these included a forged Power of Attorney dated 10 June 2022, a declaration to the Collector, an altered Aadhaar Card, and a fabricated statement dated 30 June 2022.
Respondents 4 and 5 contended that the petitioner had appeared in person on 15 June 2022 to submit the application and that the Collector lacked review powers. They also claimed that Rs. 20,00,000 was transferred to petitioner No.1’s account, establishing a legitimate transaction.
The Court conducted a comparative analysis of the original documents submitted by Respondents 4 and 5 against authentic records such as the passport, PAN Card, and Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.1. Justice Borkar stated:
"It is patently evident that the affidavit-cum-declaration submitted along with the application for transfer of license does not bear the photograph of petitioner No.1... the Aadhaar Card annexed with the transfer application bears biographical details matching those of petitioner No.1 but bears a different photograph, indicating that it was a forged document."
The Court noted similar discrepancies in the statement dated 30 June 2022 and other documents. Justice Borkar further observed:
"These variations are not minor or clerical in nature, but are of such magnitude that they cast serious doubt on the genuineness and authenticity of the documents relied upon by respondent Nos.4 and 5."
Significantly, Inspector Nandkumar S. Jadhav admitted during departmental inquiry that he had verified the wrong person as petitioner No.1 based on a forged Aadhaar Card. The Court found this admission crucial:
"This crucial admission by the Excise Inspector corroborates the petitioners’ case that an impersonator was produced in place of petitioner No.1."
Justice Borkar further recorded:
"The Collector, Pune exercised his authority to recall the order of transfer, as the very basis for such transfer—i.e., the documents relied upon—was vitiated by fraud."
On the issue of the Collector's powers, the Court cited Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550:
"Once it is established that any order was obtained by fraud, the authority concerned is duty-bound to recall it to maintain the sanctity of the process of law."
Justice Borkar held that even absent express statutory review power, administrative authorities retain inherent powers to recall orders tainted by fraud.
Regarding the Commissioner's reliance on a police report to dismiss the fraud allegations, the Court found the report vague and inconclusive:
"The report merely states in general terms that no conclusive evidence of forgery was found... this Court, while exercising powers under Article 226, is not precluded from forming a prima facie opinion based on material available on record."
The High Court concluded:
"The impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2... cannot be sustained in law. These orders are vitiated by complete non-application of mind to the material discrepancies and forged documents... Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs."
A request by the respondents for a stay on the order was declined:
"Considering the reasons assigned in the judgment, request for stay is rejected."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Mr. Vinayak R. Salokhe, Mr. Rohan Dhawad, Ms. Pravada Raut, Megha Jani, and Ms. Sampada Khanolkar
For the State (Respondent Nos.1 to 3): Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP
For Respondents 4 and 5: Mr. Hiren Kamod, instructed by Mr. Santosh L. Patil, with Arvind Tiwari and Shraddha Kadam
Case Title: Ramesh Bapurao Padmawar & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:13630
Case Number: Writ Petition No.1812 of 2025
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar
[Read/Download order]
