Anup Halder & Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5337 Cal

04.10.2021.
Court No.13
   pk                        W.P.A. No. 3688 of 2020
                             Anup Halder & another
                                      Versus
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                           (Through Video Conference)

                    Mr. Krishnendu Sarkar,
                    Mr. Abhijit Mandal,
                    Ms. M. Das
                                                   ...for the petitioners.

                    Mr. Anirban Ray,
                    Mr. Raja Saha,
                    Mr. Debasish Ghosh,
                                                         ..for the State.



                    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              other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 was revoked.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
                              2




need to revoke any rights under 4(Q) of the aforesaid

Rules.

      Mr. Majumder, 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. Majumder

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
                              3




demonstrated. While a benefit derived on the basis of a

policy decision is revoked, no prejudice can be claimed

as no vested right as accrued to the petitioners in the

first place.

       This Court sees that the revocation of 4(Q) is

neither arbitrary nor capricious. There are reasons

apparent, inter alia, is 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

off-shops at their existing cites 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.)