JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to command the respondent authorities to rescind and revoke the order of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal dated 26.10.2021.

2. By the said order, it was directed that the license of the country spirit shop be settled jointly in favour of the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein.

3. Two brothers are fighting against each other over settlement of excise license in respect of Seoraphully Country Sprit Shop.

4. Facts giving rise to this writ petition in a nutshell are as follows:

License of the said shop was initially granted to one Prankrishna Saha, who died in 1971. Thereafter the license was settled in favour of Jaladabala Saha, i.e. the wife of the deceased license on temporary basis. After the death of Jaladabala, license was settled temporarily in favour of the sons of the original deceased licensee namely Asok Jiban Saha and Rabindranath Saha. Subsequently disputes cropped up between the sons of the deceased original licensee and the license was settled in favour of the salesman of the shop namely Bimal Saha on temporary basis. Bimal ran the shop in such capacity from 1984 till 2013 and thereafter decided not to continue due to his ill health. License was thereafter settled in favour of Bijoy Saha, i.e. the writ petitioner who is one of the grandson of Prankrishna i.e. the original licensee. The 4th respondent challenged the order dated 23.07.2014 by which the license was settled in favour of the writ petitioner by preferring an appeal. The said appeal stood dismissed on technical ground and thereafter on a review petition being filed, a direction was passed upon the Excise Commissioner to decide the matter by passing a reasoned order. The Excise Commissioner, by an order dated 07.09.2018, directed the superintendent of Excise to enquire into the matter and submit a report before the Collector, who shall upon considering such report pass a reasoned order of settlement of the license. The Collector, by an order dated 22.11.2018 allowed the writ petitioner to run the shop as a licensee. On an appeal being preferred by the 4th respondent against the order of the Collector dated 22.11.18, the Excise Commissioner refused to interfere by passing an order dated 04.09.2019. The 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Principal Secretary against the aforesaid order dated 04.09.2019 and the Principal Secretary by the order dated 26.10.2021 directed the license of the shop to be settled jointly in favour of the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Principal Secretary dated 26.10.2021, the writ petitioner approached this Court.

6. Mr. Majumdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition contended that the writ petitioner having worked with the registered salesman of the shop is sufficiently experienced to run the shop. The writ petitioner being the grandson of the original licensee is also eligible to hold the license upon the death of the original licensee. Mr. Majumdar further contended that the writ petitioner expressed his willingness to hold the license at the earliest point of time when no other representative of the original licensee came forward. According to him, the writ petitioner having satisfied the criteria for settlement of the license should be allowed to run the shop. The 4th respondent, according to Mr. Majumdar cannot claim any right to run the shop as a joint licensee as he was not willing to hold the license at the relevant point of time.

7. Mr. Sarkar, learned advocate representing the 4th respondent seriously disputed the submissions of Mr. Majumdar. By referring to various documents, Mr. Sarkar contended that the 4th respondent was also willing to hold the license. He further submitted that the 4th respondent being the representative of the original licensee is entitled to have the license settled jointly with