The has issued a significant directive compelling the to allow liquor retailers to resume operations for the remainder of their original license terms. This ruling effectively addresses a long-standing dispute concerning the indefinite suspension of temporary liquor licenses, which were originally paused during the and subsequently remained dormant despite the conclusion of the electoral process. The Division Bench, led by Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, emphasized that while the state possesses the authority to regulate the liquor trade, such powers must be exercised in accordance with principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Under the court’s order, the petitioners are permitted to resume their business activities starting from , allowing them to utilize the balance of the six-month tenure originally granted under their temporary licenses. The court explicitly noted that this measure is intended to provide the licensees an opportunity to clear the inventory piled up in their shop rooms, which had remained inaccessible since the initial suspension orders were issued in early 2019. The bench further directed the state to dispose of any pending representations from these businesses within three months.
The litigation involved a cluster of appeals, including cases filed by Barun Malakar and Goutam Mondal, who challenged the state’s decision to keep their establishments closed long after the justification for the initial election-related suspension had ceased to exist. When the suspension order was later rescinded in , the authorities failed to restore the licenses, instead moving to re-examine eligibility under fluid criteria. This policy shift was further complicated by the subsequent withdrawal of the specific license category under , via notifications issued in .
Questioning Administrative Arbitrariness The court’s scrutiny was primarily directed at the state's failure to provide valid, conscionable reasons for the protracted suspension. While the state argued that the trade in intoxicants falls under the category of —suggesting that citizens do not possess a to such licenses—the court drew a sharp distinction between absolute entitlement and the protection against arbitrary state action. The judiciary observed that once the state grants a license for a fixed duration, it cannot withdraw or nullify that right without following a just and fair procedure.
Reflecting on the state’s conduct, the bench observed, “The State has absolute rights, but such rights should be exercised with fairness and reasonableness, free from arbitrariness, whims, or caprice... although the appellants do not have any in running a liquor shop, the privilege or legal right granted to them cannot be withdrawn without assigning any conscionable reason.”
The court dismissed the state’s contention that the licenses had expired by , pointing out that the state had effectively prevented the businesses from operating through its own prolonged suspension orders. The bench noted that the state could not hide behind the technicality of an expired license when that expiration was caused by the state’s own unexplained administrative delay.
Addressing Legal Standing of Licensees The legal battle centered on whether the temporary license holders, who had already invested significant capital into infrastructure and stock, had acquired a to carry on their business for the allotted time. The appellants argued that the abrupt suspension, and the eventual omission of their license category from the governing rules, constituted a violation of the . They contended that their compliance with all initial statutory requirements and payment of fees created a in the validity of their licenses.
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, writing for the bench, underscored that the procedural mechanisms of the , were ignored in the state’s handling of these businesses. The judgment highlights that the state’s actions were not only devoid of sufficient reasoning but also lacked the necessary statutory grounding to justify the indefinite extension of a temporary "dry day" order.
“The temporary licenses were granted for a period of six months. It is found that within a few days, the said licenses were suspended and were kept under suspension till long after the general election was over,” the court noted. The bench further clarified that the court would not "supplant reasons" for the state where the original orders failed to articulate any, reinforcing the requirement for transparency in executive decisions affecting commercial interests.
Path Toward Final Resolution The court’s directive provides a dual relief mechanism for the appellants. Beyond the immediate resumption of business, the judgment grants the licensees liberty to file fresh applications under . By mandating that the state must process these applications within a three-month timeframe, the court has ensured a structured pathway for these businesses to seek long-term stability beyond their current temporary authorizations.
Crucially, the court also ordered that the notifications from , which had effectively struck down the relevant licensing category, be kept in abeyance specifically for the purpose of the appellants' cases. This temporary suspension of the state’s notification allows the licensees to finish their term without being obstructed by the very policy change that had previously rendered their category of business defunct.
This judgment serves as a stern reminder to regulatory bodies that while their authority over the liquor industry is substantial, it does not grant them immunity from the constitutional mandate of non-arbitrariness. By balancing the state’s regulatory powers with the protection of business interests that have acted in good faith, the High Court has established a clearer procedural expectation for administrative conduct regarding temporary commercial permits. As the liquor shops prepare to restart operations this December, the ruling marks the conclusion of a multi-year legal impasse for the appellants, offering them a definitive, albeit limited, window to mitigate their financial losses and conclude their licensed operations in an orderly fashion.
licence suspension - arbitrary administrative action
