Probe finds irregularities in liquor permits issued between 2010 and 2016

LIQUOR SHOPS IN MAHARASHTRA CM’S CONSTITUENCY

A PROBE, which began following a routine inquiry by Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis on how four retail liquor shops sprung up in his Assembly constituency, has now revealed that between 2010 and 2016, several private dealers were issued fresh retail liquor permits in the guise of renewal of existing licences. Officially,therehasbeenafreezesince1974on issuanceofnewliquorpermitsinmaharashtra.

Fadnavis first learnt about the new liquor stores in the Nagpur south-west constituency in September 2015. When his office inquired into how these came up, it was informed that these were among the 21 licences which had been relocated to Nagpur from other districts under revision orders issued during Cabinet Ministerforexciseganeshnaik’stenureinthe Congress-ncp government.

Further complaints of irregularities and graftintheprocesspromptedthefadnavis-led Home Department to stay the relocation of these licences on September 24. But a month later, the High Court overturned this stay, which was later even upheld by the Supreme Courtonjuly7,2016,followingwhichthechief Minister ordered the detailed probe.

While the Fadnavis government has been in office since October 31, 2014, the Congressncpregimewasinpowerpreviously.thegovernment’s probe found that all licence approvals during the period were issued under the minister’s discretionary powers after district-level officials had rejected all these applicationsattheirlevelonthegroundofineligibility, government sources here said.

Inall,between2010and2016,202liquorlicences (165 country liquor, 37 foreign liquor) were shown as renewed. Records show that Naik issued the bulk of these approvals (194 out of 202). But sources confirmed that BJP’S serving Minister of State, Dilip Kamble, who was the MOS for Excise from October 31, 2014 to July 7, 2016, had issued the remaining eight orders using the same discretionary power. Section 138 of the Maharashtra Liquor Prohibition Act, 1949, gives the minister powers to revise, modify, annul or reverse any proceeding relating to grant or refusal of a licence.

CM Fadnavis told The Indian Express, “Some irregularities were noticed. So, I had asked (Excise Commissioner) V Radha to probe the matter.” He said the probe report is yet to reach him.

Themostalarmingfindingintheprobe,the report of which has been accessed by The Indian Express, was the existence of several cases where renewal orders were issued for non-existing licences. “There were also cases where similar approvals were issued for licencesthathadalreadybeensurrendered.this translatedintofloutingoftheembargoonnew licences and also caused enormous revenue loss to the exchequer,” said a source.

The state excise department has a list of 21 relevant documents which are required in renewal cases. Indicating that verification of recordswasnotdonebeforeissuingtheorders, the inquiry found 24 “most suspicious” cases whereapprovalswereissuedwhennomandatory support document was present. There were 74 other instances when approvals were granted on the basis of just one or two support documents.theinquiryalsofoundsomecases whereunsignedgovernmentletterswasused as documentary evidence.

A vast number of cases involved licences which were dormant for several years. “Renewal is an annual process for functional permits. It cannot be applied to dormant licences. Theyaretobeseparatelytreatedascasesofrevalidation,” the report states. The inquiry also foundthatinmostcasesinterestfortheperiod of non-operation was not collected. This alone cost the exchequer Rs 52 crore.

Procedures for admission of revision appeals before the minister weren’t followed at all. “Such applications must contain recommendations of the District Collector and the Excise Commissioner and should have been routed through them. But this wasn’t done at all,”thereportadds.normsforlicencetransfer tolegalheirsandrelocationofthepermitwere also not followed in several cases, it says.

Kamble said, “I did no wrong. Due process wasfollowedbeforeissuanceoftheordersduring my tenure.” Naik, meanwhile, said “The ordersigavewerebasedonevidencesputbefore me by the department staff and applicants.”