Fraud Vitiates Even The Most Sacred Orders—Excise Licence Transfer Based on Forged Aadhaar and Impersonation Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court

Forgery Dressed as Procedure Is Still Fraud—Licence Gained Through Impersonation Must Be Recalled, Even Without Express Review Power - Bombay High Court in Ramesh Bapurao Padmawar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 1812 of 2025] quashed the orders of the State Government and Excise Commissioner that had validated the transfer of an FL-II liquor licence to private parties. The Court held that the transfer was tainted by fraud, impersonation, and use of forged documents, and that such administrative orders cannot stand.

Justice Amit Borkar delivered a scathing judgment, declaring: “Once forgery is prima facie established, this Court cannot remain a mute spectator. An act founded on fraud has no legal sanctity and must be reversed to uphold the rule of law.”

“Photograph Did Not Match, Signature Was Forged—The Man Who Filed the Application Was Not the Licensee”
The Court meticulously compared the photographs and signatures on the documents submitted by respondents with the original identification documents (PAN, Aadhaar, Passport) of petitioner No.1. The conclusion was stark: “The photograph on the impugned documents does not match petitioner No.1. The Aadhaar Card annexed with the application bore correct demographic data but the image of an impersonator. The Power of Attorney and declaration were not genuine.”

The Excise Inspector himself, when confronted, admitted to being misled, stating he was shown a forged Aadhaar Card and now conceded that the man he verified was not the true licensee.

“Fraud Is Not Cured By Procedure—Forgery Once Proven Cannot Be Protected by Administrative Rubber Stamps”
The Collector had originally cancelled the transfer order upon an inquiry that unequivocally confirmed impersonation and fraudulent documents. However, the Excise Commissioner and the State Government reversed this, relying on a vague report from the Commissioner of Police.

The High Court rejected that reliance, holding: “The so-called report was vague, lacking forensic scrutiny. It did not address mismatches in photograph or signature. Forgery is evident. A fraudulently obtained order cannot be sanctified by administrative inertia.”

“Review Power Not Necessary Where Order Was Procured Through Fraud—Authority Can Always Recall What Is Tainted”
Respondents argued that the Collector had no statutory power to recall the transfer order once granted. The Court dismissed this, invoking Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres: “Even in the absence of an express review provision, any authority is duty-bound to recall its order once it finds it was obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”

Justice Borkar reaffirmed: “Such power flows not from statute alone but from the inherent duty to ensure one’s own orders are not used as instruments of deceit.”

“Courts Are Not Bystanders When State Process Is Abused—Rule of Law Must Step In Where Forgery Prevails”
The Court criticised the revisional and appellate authorities for legitimising what was clearly a fraudulent transaction: “They failed to apply mind, ignored glaring forgery, and treated impersonation as administrative oversight. This Court is duty-bound to intervene.”

The High Court declared that the entire transfer process stood vitiated. It ruled: “The foundational documents are forged. The principle that fraud vitiates all applies with full force. The Collector rightly recalled the order. The appellate and revisional authorities erred in law. Rule is made absolute.”

The Court rejected the respondents’ request for a stay on its judgment.
This judgment powerfully reiterates that fraud is a black hole in law—it swallows procedure, precedent, and privilege. The Bombay High Court has made it clear that no licence, even if government-issued, can stand when its very basis is impersonation. The sanctity of administrative orders cannot be allowed to become the cover for criminal deceit.

In the Court’s own words: “Fraud is not a formality—it is a poison. The law cannot validate what was born of impersonation and deceit.”

Date of Decision: 25 March 2025