Fair Price Shop Licenses cannot be transferred via partnership deeds or wills executed by living persons.

The Petitioner served as a caretaker for Respondent No. 5 (R5), the holder of Fair Price Shop License (FPSL) No. 74

R5 executed a registered Will in 2021 expressing her intent to transfer the license to the Petitioner upon her death

Additionally, both parties executed a notarized Partnership Deed in 2022 to run the shop

Initial applications to transfer the license based on the Will were rejected by the District Supply Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, as government policy does not permit transfers via Will

However, in a revision proceeding, the then-Minister ordered the Petitioner’s name be incorporated into the license via the Partnership Deed and subsequently ordered the deletion of R5's name

R5 later sought a review of this order, claiming the documents were obtained under undue influence and were bogus

The subsequent Minister allowed the review, recalled the transfer order, and restored the license to R5

The Petitioner challenged this restoration in the High Court

The Court applied the legal maxim “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” (What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly)

It relied on Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandates that a Will is effective only after the death of the testator

The Court further considered Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, regarding the nature of trade associations

the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulations and Distribution) Order, 1975, alongside Government Resolutions dated 22-12-1997, 07-06-2000, and 11-06-2015, which regulate the grant and transfer of Fair Price Shop Licenses

The Court reasoned that since R5 is currently alive, the Petitioner cannot claim any rights under the Will, as a Will is an ambulatory document that only gains legal force post-mortem

Regarding the Partnership Deed, the Court observed that while a licensee may enter into a business partnership, such an agreement does not override government policy governing the FPSL

The license is a grant based on individual qualification; therefore, a partnership firm cannot be recognized as the licensee over the individual

The Court found that the earlier Minister’s order—which used a partnership to effectively transfer the license and delete the original licensee's name—was an attempt to bypass the prohibition on transfers to non-heirs

Such "innovative" circumvention of policy violates the principle that prohibited acts cannot be achieved indirectly

Consequently, the order allowing the transfer was inherently illegal and the subsequent order recalling it was necessary to prevent the perpetuity of illegality

The Court answered both issues in the negative, affirming that a Will is unenforceable during the testator's lifetime and a partnership cannot be used to substitute a licensee against government policy

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, discharged the rule, and upheld the restoration of the license to Respondent No. 5