Dismissed¶29

Shibnath Naskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 May 2025MAT/579/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shibnath Naskar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.; MAT 579 of 2023; CAN 1 of 2023; Off Shop liquor licence; North 24 Parganas; Additional District Magistrate (G) & Collector of Excise; Excise Commissioner; Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department; Rule 9 (3) West Bengal Excise (Selection of Person for Grant of Licence at New Sites for Retail Sale of Intoxicants) Rules 2004; 15 days; communication dated 23.03.2005; letter dated 16.02.2009; site details submitted 13.04.2005; delay; unchallenged final order 07.09.2022; writ petition dismissed 09.02.2023; appeal dismissed 05.05.2025; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's own letter of 16th February, 2009 admitted that he had received the offer letter on 23/03/2005, and these statements were never controverted ¶16

Shibnath Naskar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/writ petitioner received the department's communication of 23rd March, 2005 on that date (so that his submission of site details on 13th April, 2005 exceeded the 15-day period under Rule 9(3)), or whether he personally collected the communication on 30th March, 2005 as he contends +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The petitioner's own letter of 16th February, 2009 admitted that he had received the offer letter on 23/03/2005, and these statements were never controverted

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's contention that he had himself collected the order/communication on 30th March, 2005 finds no reflection in any order passed by the authorities, nor has he disclosed any contemporaneous document or representation made before any such authority

¶24

Key takeaways

The petitioner/appellant submitted the site details beyond the stipulated period of 15 days, having received the communication of 23rd March, 2005 on that same date, as clear from his letter of 16th February, 2009; the 15-day period had therefore long expired when he submitted the site on 13th April, 2005ratio¶27
On the aforestated circumstances, the court found no merit in the appealratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Two-judge bench (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J. and Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) dismissed MAT 579 of 2023 (decided 05.05.2025), affirming the Learned Single Judge's order of 9th February, 2023 dismissing the writ petition of Shibnath Naskar challenging rejection of his representation for an Off Shop liquor licence. Held: the petitioner received the department's communication of 23rd March, 2005 on that very date — as admitted in his own letter of 16th February, 2009 (“on 23/03/2005”) — and submitted site details only on 13th April, 2005, beyond the 15-day period fixed by Rule 9(3) of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of Person for Grant of Licence at New Sites for Retail Sale of Intoxicants) Rules 2004; his claim to have personally collected the communication on 30th March, 2005 found no reflection in any order of the authorities or contemporaneous document. The final order of the Additional Chief Secretary dated 7th September, 2022 stood unchallenged. Appeal and connected application (CAN 1 of 2023) dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

02 05.05.2025 Ct. No. 11 Jayanta

¶2

MAT 579 of 2023 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2023

¶3

Shibnath Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Ashim Kr. Routh Mr. S. Barik Ms. Ananya Mondal …. For the Appellant. Mr. Arjun Roy Mukherjee Ms. Rajyashree Mukhrjee …. For the State.

¶5

This appeal arises out of an order passed on 9^th February, 2023 by a Learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition.

¶6

The brief facts of the matter are enumerated hereinafter.

¶7

The appellant/writ petitioner challenged an order dated 2^nd September, 2021 passed by the Excise Commissioner upholding the order passed on 7^th August, 2019 by the Additional District Magistrate (G) and Collector of Excise, North 24 Parganas, rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner to get the liquor license for the Off Shop since, he had failed to provide a suitable site within 15 days of receipt of the letter.

¶8

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of violation of Rule 9 (3) of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of Person for Grant of

¶9

¶10

License at the New Sites for Retail Sale of Intoxicants) Rules, 2004.

¶11

The writ petitioner has however not challenged the final order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, on 7^th September, 2022. This writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and also on the ground of violation of Rule 9 (3) of The West Bengal Excise (Selection of Person for Grant of Licence at New Sites for Retail Sale of Intoxicants) Rules 2004. This rule provides the manner of selection of the applicants for allotment of site. Sub-rule 3 thereof, specifies the time lines within which the concerned applicant shall offer the details, which is 15 days from the receipt of the communication.

¶12

The writ petitioner/appellant herein has argued that the communication of 23^rd March, 2005 had never been made. On the contrary, he contends that he had personally gone and taken this communication on 30^th March, 2005. The application was thereafter submitted by him on 13^th April, 2005.

¶13

The learned Counsel appearing for the State has categorically argued that there is no evidence of such communication being received by the writ petitioner/appellant on 30^th March, 2005, as contended.

¶14

It has also been contended by the counsel appearing for the State that the petitioner has himself admitted in his letter of 16^th February, 2009, that he had received the

¶15

¶16

offer letter “on 23/03/2005”. The statements made by the petitioner have never been controverted.

¶17

It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner has gone through three levels of adjudication starting with the order of 7^th August, 2019 passed by the DM (G) and Collector of Excise, which was appealed and rejected by the Excise Commissioner on 2^nd September, 2021, and the final order of 7^th September, 2022 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal which has not been challenged.

¶18

It has also been contended by the State that the Writ Petition has been filed after a long delay and therefore the petitioner does not deserve any relief.

¶19

We have considered the arguments by Counsel for both parties and have also gone through the records and the documents. It is not in dispute that on being refused the licence, the writ petitioner/appellant had at the first instance been given a hearing before the concerned Additional District Magistrate (G) & Collector of Excise on 14^th August, 2018.

¶20

The order was carried in appeal, which was disposed of on 19^th December, 2018 giving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Collector once again with necessary documents, which would be considered by the Collector

¶21

¶22

The second attempt of resurgence emanated from the order of 19^th December, 2018. Pursuant thereto, representations were made once again and a hearing was also held on the basis of such representation. The Additional District Magistrate (G) and Collector of Excise, by his order of 7^th August, 2019, dismissed the representation. This order, though carried in appeal, was sustained, the appeal being dismissed by the Excise Commissioner on 2^nd September, 2021.

¶23

Being dissatisfied with the said order, the writ petitioner/appellant had carried the same in appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal. This appeal was disposed of on 7^th September, 2022 holding, inter alia, that the communication had been made to the writ petitioner by the concerned department on 23^rd March, 2005, but the petitioner failed to offer a suitable site within 15 days, as mandated under Rule 9 (3) of the said Rules. This order has not been challenged.

¶24

The petitioner/appellant’s contention that he had himself collected the order on 30^th March, 2005 does not find any reflection in any order passed by the authorities nor has the appellant disclosed any contemporaneous document/representations made by the petitioner/appellant before any such authority.

¶25

In this conspectus of facts, it can be clearly culled out that the 15 day period for submission of the “suitable

¶26

¶27

site” had long expired, when the petitioner submitted the same on 13^th April, 2005. It is absolutely clear and has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner/appellant had submitted the site details to the concerned authority beyond the stipulated period of 15 days, having received the communication of 23^rd March, 2005, on that same date as is clear and unassailable from the letter of 16^th February, 2009.

¶28

In the aforestated circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

¶29

In view thereof, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

¶30

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶31

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

¶32

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Shibnath Naskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibnath Naskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Mahesari Vidyalaya & Ors. Vs Lalji Upadhyaya& Ors.

Canara Bank and Ors. Vs Prasenjit Ghosh and Ors.

Canara Bank and Ors. Vs Balaji Construction and Ors.

M/S MD Muslim Saikh Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S S Guha and Associates and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Arun Kumar Nandy Vs the Jana Enterprise and Ors.