Dismissed

Nivedita Halder and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC4 Feb 2022WPA/16839/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the revocation of Rule 4(Q) of the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2003, which regulated liquor licences. The court held that no specific reasons were needed for policy decisions regarding excisable goods and dismissed the challenge, though it granted leave to apply for fresh licences.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to apply for fresh licences within 15 days; authorities to dispose of applications within three months; adjustment of previously deposited fees allowed.

Nivedita Halder and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

04.02.2022. Court No.13 Item No. 3 ap

¶2

W.P.A. No. 16839 of 2021 (Through Video Conference)

¶3

Nivedita Halder & others Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Mrityunjoy Goswami, Mr. Parikshit Goswami.

¶5

...for the petitioners.

¶6

Mr. Anirban Ray, ld. Government Pleader, Mr. Raja Saha, Mr. Debasish Ghosh.

¶7

..for the State.

¶8

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶9

The principal subject matter of this application is a notification dated 27^th 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Bengal Excise (Selection of Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of liquor and other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 was revoked.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.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

With the aforesaid object, the impugned circulation cannot be faulted. The writ petition must, therefore, fail and is thereby dismissed.

¶21

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.

¶22

If the petitioners apply for adjustment of the licence fees already deposited, the respondents shall adjust the same against the new applications.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

¶25

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶26

( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )

Nivedita Halder and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nivedita Halder and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rainbow Production Ltd. and Anr. Vs Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Sukanya Mirbahar Vs State of West Bengal

Zulfikker Rahaman Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sutap Chandra Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S S G Environmental Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal