Nirmal And Navin Private Limited ... vs State Of West Bengal And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1528 Cal/2

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             (Original Side)

                                                     APOT 56 of 2022
                                                     IA No: GA 1 of 2022

                                                     Reserved on: 01.04.2022
                                                     Pronounced on: 02.05.2022


Nirmal and Navin Private Limited and Ors.

                                                                     ...Appellants

                                       -Vs-

State of West Bengal and Ors.

                                                                     ...Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Kishore Dutta, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Saptarshi Mal, Advocates ... for the appellants

Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Mr. D. Ghosh, Advocates ... for the State Mr. Deepnath Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Kaunish Chakraborti, Mr. S. Haque, Mr. Bhaskar Dwivedi, Advocates ... for the proforma respondent

Coram: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, JUDGE

Prakash Shrivastava, CJ:

1. This appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner is directed against the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd of March, 2022 whereby WPO

1133 of 2022 has been dismissed.

2 APOT 56 of 2022

2. Appellant had approached the writ Court with the plea that erstwhile

director of the petitioner company, for the purpose of operating a cold

storage on the unit owned by the company, had applied for license under

West Bengal Cold Storage (Licensing and Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short,

'the Act of 1966'). Initially license dated 30th of August, 1993 was granted

for a period of 5 years which was renewed from time to time upto 29th of

August, 2008. Further case of the appellant was that the entirety of the

shares of the petitioner company were sold and transferred to the appellant

Nos. 2 and 3 and other members of the family who became the majority

share holder. The show cause notice dated 8th of July, 2016 was issued by

the respondent licensing authority for cancellation of license. Certain

proceedings were taken up thereafter and the notice dated 28th of January,

2022 was issued by the Director of Agricultural Marketing, requiring the

appellant to submit the copy of the final judgment in two cases pending

against the appellant, hence the writ petition was filed challenging the said

notice and also making a prayer to regularize the license and grant renewal

of the license.

3. Learned Single Judge while examining the plea has found it shocking

that the appellant was operating the cold storage since 2008, and especially

after 2013 after taking over management, in spite of registration of FIR and

prosecution. In this background, the plea of the appellant raised in the

petition for renewal of the license has been found to be dishonest plea and

the conduct of the appellant has been found to be in gross violation of the

provisions of the Act of 1966 being ex facie criminal in nature. Respondent

Director, Agricultural Marketing, therefore, has been directed to apply for

cancellation of bail and observation has been made to take immediate steps

to stop the operation of the cold storage after making due arrangements for 3 APOT 56 of 2022

relocation of stored goods in a separate licensed cold storage and the

appellant has been held liable for the running of cold storage without

license, both to the authorities as well as from any third party from the year

2013. In this background, the writ petition has been dismissed by imposing

a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent No. 4.

4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the

direction of the learned Single Judge to apply for cancellation of bail is

harsh and that earlier also the license which was in the name of the

company was renewed with retrospective effect and presently there are

seeds stored in the cold storage.

5. Learned Counsel for the official respondent has opposed the appeal

and has submitted that the license of the appellant had expired long back

and appellant is operating without license in spite of registration of FIR.

6. Learned Counsel for the private respondent has submitted that in the

civil proceedings, private respondent has been found to be the owner of the

cold storage and he is running the same whereas the appellant has

trespassed by violating the order of the status quo.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the

record, it is noticed that undisputedly the license of the appellant had

expired in the year 2008 and thereafter there was no right to run the cold

storage without obtaining the renewal. Record further reflects that the civil

dispute is pending between the appellant and the private respondent in

which certain orders are passed which are binding on the parties but

appellant had allegedly violated those orders. That apart, registration of FIR

in the year 2018 at the instance of the Assistant Director of Agricultural

Marketing for offence under the provisions of the Act of 1966 is not in

dispute but in spite of expiry of license and registration of FIR, appellant 4 APOT 56 of 2022

had continued to operate the cold storage, therefore, learned Single Judge

has not committed any error in dismissing the petition. On the issue of

direction to apply for cancellation of bail we are of the opinion that having

regard to the circumstances of the case instead of issuing a positive

direction to the respondent Director, Agricultural Marketing to apply for

cancellation of bail, it should be left to his discretion to take appropriate

steps considering the ground situation in the matter for cancellation of the

bail and if such an application for cancellation is filed the same will be

decided on its own merit. We also find that the cost which is imposed by

the learned Single Judge is on the higher side, therefore, the cost is reduced

to Rs. 1,00,000/-. With the aforesaid modification, the order of the learned

Single Judge is affirmed and the appeal is disposed of.

(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) CHIEF JUSTICE

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ) JUDGE Kolkata 02.05.2022 ________ PA(SS)

(A.F.R. / N.A.F.R.)