Disposed

Sandip Karforma v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC28 Nov 2023WPA/4404/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding the refusal of an excise licence due to public agitation, the High Court of Calcutta directed respondent authorities to reconsider the application. The court noted villagers who initially agitated had subsequently consented in writing to the establishment, forming a record that necessitated a fresh decision after considering this new evidence.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to reconsider the excise licence application and take a fresh decision within eight weeks after considering new documents showing changed objections.

Sandip Karforma Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

05 28.11.2023 mb

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

W.P.A. No. 4404 of 2021

¶4

Sandip Karforma

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, Mr. Istayak Ahmed …for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Anirban Roy, Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Mr. Arjun Roy, Mr. Subhendu Sengupta,

¶9

Mr. Abu Siddique Mallick …for the State

¶10

The petitioner sought to set up a liquor shop but the respondent-authorities refused to grant excise licence to the petitioner on the ground of public agitation. It is submitted that the specific villagers who had initially agitated, which was the basis of such rejection, subsequently have written that they were misled and have expressed consent in writing to the setting up of the restaurant-cumbar by the petitioner at the concerned location. Learned counsel for the petitioner hands up a copy of the purported communication to that effect by the said villagers.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State submits that although the petitioner has contended that no copy

¶12

¶13

of the rejection order was served on the petitioner, the same is incorrect and the order of rejection was duly served.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State stands by the decision taken by the State on the materials available to the respondent-authorities.

¶15

Although there cannot be any fault found in the rejection by the State of the petitioner’s application for excise licence at the relevant point of time in view of certain villagers having raised a public agitation, since the petitioner seeks to bring on record subsequent facts, which are extremely germane, since allegedly the self-same objectors have now taken a contrary stand and agree to the bar- cum-liquor shop being set up by the petitioner, it would only be appropriate for the respondentauthorities to reconsider the issue upon considering the documents sought to be relied on by the petitioner.

¶16

Accordingly, W.P.A. No. 4404 of 2021 is disposed of by directing the respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue of the petitioner’s application for obtaining excise licence upon a fresh consideration of the documents now sought to be relied on by the petitioner.

¶17

It is made clear that upon such reconsideration and giving opportunity not only to the petitioner

¶18

¶19

but the concerned objectors on the issue, the respondent shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law.

¶20

The entire exercise, it is expected, shall be concluded within eight weeks from date.

¶21

The decision rejecting the application of the petitioner’s excise licence shall remain in abeyance till the respondents decide the issue afresh as per the above direction and take a fresh call on the matter.

¶22

A copy of the bunch of documents handed over in court today be kept on record.

¶23

Learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner shall, however, serve another copy of the said bunch of documents to the leaned advocate-onrecord for the State during the course of the day.

¶24

There will be no order as to costs.

¶25

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶26

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

Sandip Karforma v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Karforma v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Triveni Engicons Pvt. Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Triveni Engicons Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sk Altaf Rahaman and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Syed Tamijul Islam and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sukhram Gupta Vs Cesc Limited and Others

Krishna Traders New Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.