Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shyama Charan Hazra vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 October, 2021
05.10.2021.
Ct. No.13
Sl. 14
sp W.P.A. No. 16838 of 2021
Shyama Charan Hazra
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Through Video Conference)
Mr. Krishnendu Sarkar,
Ms. Meghla Das
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray, ld. G.P.,
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other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 was revoked.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 petitioner was 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. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner 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. Sarkar 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 petitioner 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 petitioner has 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
petitioner applies 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.)
