SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Cal) 60

High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
Asutosh Ghosh
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others
W.P. No. 7797(W) of 2012 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 10-02-2014

Appearing Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Arunava Ghosh, A.K. Shaw, Mainak Ganguly, P. Chakraborty, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, Abhratosh Mazumder, Soumitra Mukherjee, Suman Sengupta, R4 & R5, Joydip Kar, Nirmalya Biswas, D. Chakraborty, Advocates.

Headnote:

EXCISELAW - Retail sale of liquor - License - Grant - Cancellation - Licensee's 'off shop' was granted license in 2005 after enquiry found proposed site free from restrictions under Rule 8 of West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 - Complaints lodged by third parties in 2011 alleging shop's proximity to mosque violating Rule 8 - Collector (Excise) directed closure of shop in 2012 without jurisdiction - Collector's order quashed - Licensee entitled to reopen shop and renew license.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner was granted a license in 2005 to operate an 'off shop' for the retail sale of liquor. The license was renewed annually until 2011 when complaints were lodged by third parties alleging that the shop was in violation of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 due to its proximity to a mosque. The Collector (Excise) directed the closure of the shop in 2012.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Collector (Excise) did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints lodged by the third parties and that the order to close the shop was passed without jurisdiction.

Issues: 1. Whether the Collector (Excise) had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints lodged by the third parties? 2. Whether the order to close the shop was passed without jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Collector (Excise) did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints lodged by the third parties because: - The third parties could have challenged the grant of the license by filing an appeal before the Excise Commissioner within one month from the date of the grant, but they failed to do so. - The Collector (Excise) did not have the power to review the order of the Collector granting the license. 2. The order to close the shop was passed without jurisdiction because: - The Collector (Excise) erroneously referred to Rule 62 of the Consolidated Rules and Section 26 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, which were inapplicable to the case. - The Collector (Excise) did not have the power to cancel or suspend the license under Section 42 or 43 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, as there was no breach of the terms and conditions of the license.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Collector's order, and directed the official respondents to permit the petitioner to reopen his 'off shop' and renew his license.

Judgment :

1. In response to an advertisement dated November 24, 2004 inviting applications for grant of foreign liquor off shop licence, inter alia, within the local limits of Burdwan Municipality, the petitioner had offered his candidature vide application dated December 14, 2004. It was accompanied by the requisite fees of Rs.12,000/-. The petitioner’s application having been found to be in order, he was called upon to participate in a lottery along with other eligible candidates. Fortune smiled on the petitioner at the draw of lots. He was selected for grant of licence and called upon to indicate the site of the proposed ‘off shop’. Two sites were indicated by him. Enquiry was conducted in respect of the first site by the Deputy Excise Collector, Sadar Range, Burdwan East Area, Burdwan. In his report dated September 27, 2005, the enquiry officer observed that the proposed site was free from any restriction under Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 (hereafter the ‘New Sites Rules’). The District Magistrate and Collector, Burdwan (hereafter the Collector), being the licensing authority, thereafter confirmed to the petitioner vide memo dated November 14, 2005 that a licence is being granted to him. Licence in Form X bearing no. 17/2005 dated November 14, 2005 was ultimately issued. The petitioner started business a few days thereafter and till almost the middle of 2011, there was no interference from any quarter. This position has been admitted by the official respondents even in their affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition.

2. The records reveal lodging of complaints by the respondents 4 and 5, beginning from August, 2011. The first one dated August 11, 2011 was addressed by the respondent 4 and others to the President, Burdwan Minority Cell. The second one dated September 5, 2011, at the instance of the same complainants and bearing almost similar contents as the first one was addressed to the Collector. The respondent 5 was the author of the third complaint dated October 13, 2011, which was addressed, among other public authorities, to the Collector.

The English translations of the second and third complaints referred to above, read as follows:

“Date: 05.09.2011

I, Osman Gani Molla, Goda, Burdwan work in the Burdwan Court Compound premises and so I go to offer my namaz in Court Compound Mosque.

In the year 2006, Badamtala Foreign Liquor Shop was set up within 900-950 feet of our Court Compound Mosque, without complying with any rules, but we did not raise any objection thereto at that time because we, that is to say, those of us who go to offer prayers, were not aware of the rule then, Memo No. 527 Dt. 02/04/04, which says there will not be any liquor shop within 1000 feet from the mosque. We have given an objection on 11/8/11.

I give my objection again or make a prayer that the shop be removed elsewhere. I make a prayer that the shop be removed at other place because it is hurting our religious sentiment.

Hence, Sir, we make a prayer and give our objection that the Badamtala Foreign Liquor Shop is hurting our religious sentiment. The Badamtala Foreign Liquor Shop be removed at some other place for the interest of public.”

“Date: 13/10/11

This is to submit that I, Syed Mussarat Ali of Bara Balidanga, Golahat, Bardhaman, regularly offer namaz at Court Masjid. On 8/10/11 having gone to offer Friday namaz I received a leaflet wherefrom I came to know that about four years ago a foreign liquor shop has come up at Badamtala within 850 feet of this Court Masjid. It is stated in the Government Order that no liquor shop could come up within 1000 feet (from the mosque).

Although I am not personally inconvenienced, I am not raising here my personal interest. Being concerned about the Muslim Community, my contention is why should the liquor shop be near our mosque? The liquor shop being located near our mosque means our religion


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top