JUDGMENT -BOBDE S.A., J.:---This petition is directed against the order dated 31st October, 1988 passed by the Collector, Pune. By the impugned order the Collector, Pune, has directed that the license in Form F.L. II be transferred in the name of the widow of the original licensee. The original licensee was one Balkrishna Ramchandra Wadkar. His widow is Smt. Shobha Balkrishna Wadkar, the respondent No. 4 herein. 2. The licence in question that in Form F.L. II was issued by the Collector, Pune in the year 1973 in the name of Balkrishna Ramchandra Wadkar. He entered into a partnership on 12th July, 1979 with Suryakant and Baburao, the petitioners herein. The petitioners were recognised as partners under Rule 40 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, the relevant extract reads as follows:--- "40. Regulation of business of licensee.---(1) No person shall be recognised as partner of the holder of a vendor's licence for the purposes of his licence, unless the partnership has been declared to the Collector before the licence is granted and the names of the partners have been entered jointly in the licence or if the partnership is entered into after the granting of the licence, unless the Collector agrees on application made to him, to alter the licence and to add the name or names of the partner or partners in the licence: (1-A) Except with the previous sanction of the Collector, no person recognised as partner under sub-rule (1) shall be allowed to withdraw from the partnership and to have his name as partner deleted from the licence. (2)(a) Subject to the provisions of Clause (b), a holder of a vendor's licence shall carry on his business under the licence either personally or by an agent or servant duly authorised by him in this behalf by a written nokarnama in Form F.L. XIV, signed by himself and counter-signed by a prohibition and excise officer not lower in rank than a Sub-Inspector:--- (b) ............... (3) ............... (4) ............... (5) ............... (6) ..............." 3. The licence was admittedly never issued in the joint names of the partners. Neither was it transferred in the joint names of partners in accordance with the Rule 40. The petitioners were only recognised as partners of the holder of a vendor's licence for the purpose of his licence. In other words, the names were only added as partners of the licence holder. Neither was it transferred in the joint names of partners in accordance with the Rule 40. The petitioners were only recognised as partners of the holder of a vendor's licence for the purpose of his licence. In other words, the names were only added as partners of the licence holder. There is no dispute that the licence was issued in the name of Balkrishna Wadkar and the names of the petitioners were merely added as partners under Rule 40. 4. On 23rd December, 1985 Balkrishna Wadkar expired. Thereafter, applications were made by his widow as well as the partners of her deceased husband for transferring the licence in their name. The widow i.e. respondent No. 4 prayed for a transfer of the licence in her name. The petitioners prayed for a transfer of the licence in their name. 5. These applications have been decided by the Collector by the impugned order dated 31st October, 1988. By the said order impugned in this petition the Collector has held that the partnership between Balkrishna Ramchandra Wadkar and the petitioners stood dissolved on the demise of Balkrishna Wadkar. Further the Collector held that he is competent to direct the issue of licence under Condition No. 8 of the licence in Form F.L. II read with Rule 61-A of the aforesaid Rule in the name of his widow, the respondent No. 1 herein. Condition No. 8 reads as follows:--- "8. The licensee, his heirs, legal representatives or assignees shall have no claim whatsoever to the continuance or renewal of this licence after the expiry of the period for which it is granted. It shall be entirely within the discretion of the Collector to permit or not the assignee of the licensee in case of sale or transfer of the heir or legal representative of the licensee, in case of death, to have the benefit of the licence for the unexpired portion of the term for which it is granted." Rule 61-A of the said Rule as it stood on the date of the order of the Collector reads as follows:--- "61-A. Transfer of licence from one name to another.—No licence granted under Rules 5, 25 or 45 shall be transferred by the Collector from one name to another except with the previous sanction of the State Government and on an application made in that behalf to the Collector." 6. On a plain reading of Condition No. 8 of the licence, it is clear that the Collector had no discretion to transfer the licence in the name of respondent No. 4 has been done. The discretion extends only to transferring the benefit of the licence for the unexpired portion of the term for which it is granted. 7. The question that remained is whether the licence could have been transferred under Rule 61-A of the Rule to respondent No. 4, as has been done, or to any other person. This is turn depends on the existence of the licence. The licence itself stood expired upon demise of the original licensee i.e. Balkrishna Wadkar and dissolution of the firm. There is no dispute that the firm stood dissolved by virtue of section 42 of the Partnership Act which provides that subject to a contract a firm stands dissolved upon the death of a partner. Admittedly, the partnership deed in the present case does not contain a contract. The question is, what happens to a licence upon death of the licensee. 8. Under the scheme of the Bombay Prohibition Act, the State Government retains the exclusive privilege to import, export, transport, manufacture, bottle, sell, buy, possess or use any intoxicant including liquor. The Government has the power to part with this exclusive right of privilege in favour of any person or any of the above purposes by charging fee. This is done by means of a licence. In the present case, the licence is issued under Rule 25 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 which enables the person to apply for the licence. The Rule requires the Collector to verify the particulars given therein. It further empowers the Collector to grant the licence after satisfying himself, upon making such inquiries as he deems necessary, and satisfying himself that the premises proposed for location of the shop are in conformity with the provision of the Rules, to grant such a licence. The Form F.L. II prohibits the licence to be granted in favour of the person named therein, referred to in the licence in the form as the licensee. It is clear that the licensee can only be a specific person or persons. The Form F.L. II prohibits the licence to be granted in favour of the person named therein, referred to in the licence in the form as the licensee. It is clear that the licensee can only be a specific person or persons. Therefore, where the licence is in the name of a specific person the only conclusion can be that upon the death of such a person the licence must be considered as having come to an end or extinguished. 9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the licence was only in the name of Balkrishna Wadkar i.e. the deceased husband of respondent No. 4: It is, therefore, clear that the licence came to an end upon his demise. If that is the position, it is clear that there is no question of operation of Rule 61-A which provides for the transfer of licence. That rule obviously contemplates the transfer of a subsisting licence. In the present case, that Rule could not have been invoked since the licence itself had come to an end. 10. It is, therefore, clear that the Collector had no discretion to transfer the licence either by virtue of Condition No. 8 or Rule 61-A in favour of respondent No. 4. He, therefore, also had no discretion to transfer the licence in favour anyone else. 11. In the circumstance, the petition must succeed. The impugned order of the Collector transferring the licence in the name of respondent No. 4 is set aside. However, this would not preclude the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 for applying for a licence under Rule 25. That application must be considered as on the date on which these parties made their application for transfer i.e. on 7th January, 1986 and 3rd February, 1986. As regards the parties i.e. the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 are at liberty to make applications within a period of four weeks from today. If, such an application is made the Collector shall decide the said applications within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said applications in accordance with the policy in existence on the date of their applications dated 7th January, 1986 and 3rd February, 1986, in accordance with the law. 12. If, such an application is made the Collector shall decide the said applications within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said applications in accordance with the policy in existence on the date of their applications dated 7th January, 1986 and 3rd February, 1986, in accordance with the law. 12. It is an admitted position that the licence has been renewed in favour of M/s. S.B. Wines i.e. the partnership firm of deceased Balkrishna Wadkar and the petitioners. Till the applications proposed to be made by the parties are decided, the existing arrangement shall continue without conferring any right on the petitioners. 13. The parties shall be at liberty to apply for refund of any such sum as may be advised. 14. Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. P.A. to give ordinary copy of this order to the parties concerned. All authorities concerned to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated as true copy by the Sheristedar of this Court. -----