##PAGE1##

Calcutta High Court

In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty

&

The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury

MAT 112 of 2025

with

IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025

The Additional District Magistrate (G)

and Collector of Excise, Darjeeling & Ors.

- Versus

–

Ajoy Lucas Edwards

For the State/Appellants : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. A.G. (V/C)

Mr. Amal Sen, Ld. A.A.G. (V/C)

Mr. Subir Kr. Saha, Ld. A.G.P.

Mr. Sombuddha Dutta,

Ms. Bedashruti Bose.

For the respondent : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. (V/C)

Mr. Samim Ahmed, (V/C)

Ms. Ambiya Khatun,

Ms. Esha Acharya.

Hearing is concluded on : 24^thDecember, 2025.

Judgment On : 24^th December, 2025.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 17^th

December, 2025 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition being

2

WPA 2505 of 2025 which was preferred challenging inter alia an order dated 4th

December, 2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (G) and Collector

of Excise, Darjeeling in Misc. Case No.04/2025-2026/07958/M.

2. Records would reveal that the writ petitioner, the proprietor of the

Glenary’s Restaurant-cum-Bar (hereinafter referred to as the said restaurant)

was granted a licence for retail sale of foreign liquor for consumption on the

premises of any restaurant and attached bar vide memo dated 10^th April, 2025

stating inter alia that the said license shall remain valid for the period from 1^st

April, 2025 to 31^st March, 2026. The writ petitioner also applied for sanction to

hold professional entertainment or to permit playing of vocal instrumental

music. Upon consideration of the said application permission was granted vide

memo dated 10th April, 2023 under Rule 239 of the West Bengal Excise (F.L)

Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 1998 Rules) up to 31^st March, 2024. An

application for renewal was, thereafter, filed by the writ petitioner but the same

was not disposed of. In the midst thereof, the impugned order dated 4^th

December, 2025 was passed suspending the license of the said restaurant for a

period of 90 days.

3. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sen, learned

Additional Advocate General submits that the writ petition itself was not

maintainable in view of the alternative remedies provided under the provisions

of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. The exceptions curved out for entertaining a writ

petition in spite of availability of alternative remedy also do not apply in the

present case since the order impugned was passed upon granting an

3

opportunity of hearing and there had, in fact, been no infringement of any

enforceable right. Such argument, as urged, was glossed over by the learned

single Judge and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants

interference in the present appeal.

4. Drawing our attention to the order impugned in the writ petition, Mr.

Dutta submits that the defects as has been indicated are not curable in nature

and that there had been an admission on the part of the writ petitioner as

regards non-compliance of the statutory provisions. In view thereof, the learned

single Judge ought not to have exercised discretion in favour of the writ

petitioner.

5. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ

petitioner/respondent, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr.

Dutta and submits that primarily the present appeal itself is not maintainable

since there had been no decision on merits of the matter.

6. He further contends that the writ petitioner is enjoying the licence for

retail sale for foreign liquor, as would be explicit from the memo dated 10^th

April, 2025. The permission as initially sought for under Rule 239 of the 1998

Rules was also granted vide memo dated 10th April, 2023. Prior to expiry of the

validity period, the writ petitioner applied for permission afresh but the same

was admittedly not disposed of by the authorities and for such inaction on the

part of the authorities the writ petitioner cannot be made