Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mr. Surya Kanta Samanta Of Madira ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 22 December, 2021
22.12.2021
Court No.13
Item No.3
AP
WPA 16288 of 2021
Mr. Surya Kanta Samanta of Madira and Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
(Through Video Conference)
Mr. Soumak Bera
... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Government Pleader
Mr. Raja Saha
Mr. Debasish Ghosh
... For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on
record.
The principal subject matter of this application is a
notification dated 27th December, 2019 whereby Rule 4(Q)
of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of Sites and Grant of
License for Retail Sale of liquor and other Intoxicants)
Rules, 2003 was revoked. The said Rule was introduced in
the year 2019. By the reason of such Rule, a licence for a
limited period was granted to sell on a retail basis all
categories of liquor except Tari and Pachwai. It is
submitted that the said licence which the petitioners were
enjoying, was initially suspended by reason of a
notification of the Election Commission of India.
Upon reconsideration after the expiry of the E.C.I.
notification at the behest of the orders of this Court, the
Excise Authorities in Bengal have felt the need to revoke
any rights under 4(Q) of the aforesaid Rules.
2
Mr. Bera, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners submits that revocation of an existing licence
unilaterally by the State and that too while considering
revival of an existing licence should have been informed
with reasons.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Internet and Mobile Association of
India vs. Reserve Bank of India reported in (2020) 10
SCC 274. By reference to paragraph 174 of the said
judgment, Mr. Bera would argue that there may be a
presumption of collateral purpose when no reasons are
provided while withdrawing the circular.
This Court is of the view that the facts and
circumstances of the case Internet Mobile Association of
India (supra) are quite different from that of the power
exercised by the State under the aforesaid Bengal Excise
Rules in the impugned notification.
It is now a well-settled principle of Administrative
Law that there is a presumption of reasons behind a policy
decision either to introduce a right or to revoke the same,
particularly, in the context of goods that are monitored by
the Excise Authority. Such presumption continues until
the contrary is demonstrated. While a benefit derived on
the basis of a policy decision is revoked, no prejudice can
be claimed as no vested right has accrued to the
petitioners in the first place.
3
This Court sees that the revocation of 4(Q) is
neither arbitrary nor capricious. There are reasons
apparent, inter alia, that, indiscriminate sale of all
categories of liquor is sought to be controlled and
regulated by the State for the health and well being of the
people.
With the aforesaid object, the impugned circulation
cannot be faulted. The writ petition must, therefore, fail
and is thereby dismissed.
However, since the writ petitioners have been at
one point of time granted a benefit under 4(Q) albeit non
existent today, they shall be entitled to apply for fresh
licence for off-shops at their existing sites or otherwise,
upon full compliance with all required formalities afresh. If
such application is made within a period of 15 days from
date, the Authorities shall consider and dispose of the
same in accordance with the applicable rules and law
within a period of three months thereafter.
If the petitioners apply for adjustment of the licence
fees already deposited, the respondents shall adjust the
same against the new applications.
There shall be no order as to costs.
All parties are directed to act on a server copy of
this order duly downloaded from the official website of this
Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
