Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nivedita Halder & Others vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 February, 2022
04.02.2022.
Court No.13
Item No. 3
ap W.P.A. No. 16839 of 2021
(Through Video Conference)
Nivedita Halder & others
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Mrityunjoy Goswami,
Mr. Parikshit Goswami.
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Anirban Ray, ld. 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Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 was revoked.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
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
fresh 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.)
