IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao WPA No. 19740 of 2024 Purna Chandra Mondal Versus The State of West Bengal and Others Mr. Krishnendu Sarkar Mrs. Manisha Bose Ms. Meghla Das .....For the petitioner.

Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Mr. Debraj Saha .....For the State.

Hearing Concluded On : 13.02.2026 Judgment on : 18.03.2026 Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for setting aside the order dated 10th July, 2024 and a direction upon the respondent authorities to process the application of the petitioner for shifting of the liquor shop of the petitioner at the site offered by him as an existing site.

2. The petitioner is running the business under the name and style of Chandni Pachwai and Supplementary Country Spirit Shop for the last 50 years. On 15th December, 2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the following order in the case of State of Tamil Nadu represented by Its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors. Vs. K. Balu and Another reported in (2017) 2 SCC 281:

“29. We, accordingly, hereby direct and order as follows:

29.1. All States and Union Territories shall forthwith cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along National and State highways;

29.2. The prohibition contained in Para 29.1 above shall extend to and include stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority;

29.3. The existing licences which have already been renewed prior to the date of this order shall continue until the term of the licence expires but no later than 1-4-2017;

29.4. All signage and advertisements of the availability of liquor shall be prohibited and existing ones removed forthwith both on National and State highways;

29.5. No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i)

visible from a national or State highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or State highway; and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 m of the outer edge of the national or State highway or of a service lane along the highway.

29.6. All States and Union Territories are mandated to strictly enforce the above directions. The Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police shall within one month chalk out a plan for enforcement in consultation with the State Revenue and Home Departments. Responsibility shall be assigned, inter alia, to District Collectors and Superintendents of Police and other competent authorities. Compliance shall be strictly monitored by calling for fortnightly reports on action taken.

29.7. These directions issue under Article

142 of the Constitution.”

3. Subsequent to the order dated 15th December, 2016, several applications have been filed for extension of time for compliance in some cases or modification or recalling of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15th December, 2016. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 31st March, 2017, passed the following order:

“25. After considering the submissions which have been urged before this Court, we are of the view that there are three areas where the rigours of the directions which have been issued by this Court may require to be suitably modulated without affecting the basic principle underlying the judgment. The first is in relation to limits of local bodies with a population of less than 20,000 people. In such areas, it has been urged before this Court that a State highway is the main thoroughfare area along which the township has developed in small clusters of 20,000 or less. Hence, the requirement of maintaining a distance of 500 m from the outer edge of the highway or service lane may result in a situation where the entire local area may fall within the prohibited distance. We find some substance in the submission. We must emphatically clarify that even in such areas falling under local bodies with a population of less than 20,000, no licence for