GOUTAM MONDAL AND ANR vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

MAT 812 of 2024
With
CAN 1 of 2024
CAN 2 of 2026
Barun Malakar & Others
Vs
State of West Bengal & Others

With
MAT 418 of 2023
Goutam Mondal and Anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal and Ors.

With

MAT 847 of 2022
Raju Ghosh
Vs.
State of West Bengal and Ors.

Before: The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
&
The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
Page 1 of 23

For the Appellants in MAT
: Mr. Aninda Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv,
Ms. Arpita Saha,
Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee,
Mr. Saurabh Prasad

……..Advocates

For the State
812/2024 & MAT
847/2022
: Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, ld. AG
Mr. Amit Chakraborty, Ld. AGP
Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee,
Ms. Falguni Bandopadhyay
Soma Chakraborty
………Advocates

CAV on : 06.10.2026


Judgment on : 13.11.2026

Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :-
For the sake of convenience and brevity and also on consent of the
parties, three appeals being MAT 812 of 2024, MAT 847 of 2022 and
MAT 418 of 2023 are disposed of by this common judgment.

MAT 812 of 2024 & MAT 847 of 2022:-

1. The appeal being MAT 812 of 2024 is directed against the
judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 passed in W.P. No. 16265 (W) of
2019, whereby the writ petition was dismissed by following the common
judgment dated 27.09.2019 passed in a batch of matters concerning
licences granted under Rule 4(q) of the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2003.
Page 2 of 23

1.1. The appeal being MAT 847 of 2022 is directed against the
judgment and order dated 16.09.2021 passed in W.P. No. 1090 of
2020, whereby the writ petition was dismissed by following the
judgment dated 09.09.2021 and 13.09.2021 passed in WP No. 1585 of
2020 concerning licences granted under Rule 4(q) of the West Bengal
Excise Rules, 2003. (in short “the 2003 Rules).
2. By notification dated 03.10.2018, a new category of excise
licence was introduced under Rule 4(q) of the 2003 rules, permitting
sale of all kinds of liquor, except tari and pachwai, from a liquor shop.
Pursuant thereto, the appellants were granted temporary licences for a
period of six months.
3. On 02.03.2019, Order No. C-40E was issued suspending the
operation of all such liquor shops until further orders, citing the
General Election of 2019 and the instructions of the Election
Commission. The appellants contend that the suspension was not
based on any breach or default on their part and was not limited to the
period contemplated under the provisions relating to election-time
closure of liquor shops.
4. The General Election concluded on 23.05.2019. The appellants'
licences were due to expire on 14.08.2019. As the suspension
continued, the appellants approached the High Court by filing W.P. No.
16265(W) of 2019.
Page 3 of 23

5. On 22.08.2019, the Excise Commissioner issued Order No.
22EG rescinding the order dated 02.03.2019. However, the appellants
were not permitted to resume business for the remaining period of their
licences. The order stated that continuation of the temporary licences
would be considered by the Excise Directorate having regard to demand
and supply, law and order and other relevant factors, and that the
applications for continuation would be re-examined subject to the
applicable conditions.
6. The appellants contend that, after rescission of the suspension
order, their licences ought to have been restored for the balance period
of the original tenure. According to them, the authorities could not
reopen the question of eligibility or impose fresh conditions after the
licences had already been granted upon fulfilment of the prescribed
requirements.
7. Several similarly situated persons filed writ petitions which were
disposed of by the common judgment dated 27.09.2019. W.P. No.
16265(W) of 2019 was not part of the matters disposed of by that
judgment and remained pending. Subsequently, the same was disposed
of on 16.04.2024 following the aforesaid common judgment dated
27.09.2019.
8. The principal issues arising for consideration in these appeals
are:
Page 4 of 23

1. Whether the suspension order dated 02.03.2019 was
authorised by Sections 26 and 42 of the Bengal Excise Act,
1909.
2. Whether the election-related closure provisions permitted
suspension of the licences beyond the period contemplated
under the West Bengal Excise (Closure of Retail Licensed
Premises on Special Occasion, viz. Election) Rules, 1998.
3. Whether, after rescission of the suspension order on
22.08.2019, the appellants were entitled to restoration of their
licences for the unexpired period.
4. Whether the Excise authorities could reconsider the
eligibility of the appellants or impose fresh conditions for
continuation of licences which had already been granted.
5. Whether there was any valid basis for treating the Rule 4(q)
licence holders differently from other categories of liquor
licence holders.
6. Whether the findings in the common judgment dated
27.09.2019, as adopted in the order dated 16.04.2024, are
sustainable.
9. The appellants' case is that their licences were granted for a
fixed period after fulfilment of the prescribed requirements and
payment of the requisite fees. There was no allegation of breach of the
conditions of licence or any other default against them. The suspension
Page 5 of 23

was, according to them, solely on account of the General Election and
continued even after the election was over. They contend that the
suspension was not permissible under Sections 26 or 42 of the Bengal
Excise Act, 1909 or under the 1998 Election Closure Rules. They
further contend that once the suspension was rescinded on
22.08.2019, the licences ought to have been restored for the balance
period and could not have been subjected to a fresh consideration. The
appellants also challenge the separate treatment of Rule 4(q) licence
holders and contend that there was no sufficient basis for denying
them the benefit of their remaining licence period.


10. These two appeals have been filed against the dismissal of the
writ petition and the adoption of the common judgment dated
27.09.2019. The appellants seek restoration of the balance period of
their licences and challenge the legality of the suspension, the
subsequent non-revival of the licences and the fresh consideration
proposed by the Excise authorities.
11. The crux of the dispute relates to the validity of the suspension
of the appellants’ Rule 4(q) licence during the 2019 General Election
and the refusal to restore the licences for their unexpired period after
the suspension order was rescinded. The appellants contend that the
suspension and subsequent non-revival were not supported by the
provisions of Bengal Excise Act or the applicable Rules and that the
Page 6 of 23

authorities could not subject already granted licences to a fresh
consideration.
MAT 418 of 2023:-
12. The appeal being MAT 418 of 2023 has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 08.10.2021 passed by a learned Single
Judge in WPA No. 7930 of 2020, (Goutam Mondal & Ors. v. State of
West Bengal & Ors.), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants
was dismissed.
13. The appellants are excise licensees who were granted temporary
licences for running foreign liquor “Off” shops under the relevant
provisions of the West Bengal Excise Rules. The licences were initially
granted for a period of six months. The appellants state that they had
fulfilled the prescribed requirements, deposited the requisite licence
fees and complied with the terms and conditions attached to the
licences. They were carrying on business and were also paying the
monthly licence fees and other dues to the State.
14. During the subsistence of the licences, the operation of the
liquor shops was suspended in connection with the General Election by
order dated 02.03.2019. According to the appellants, the said
suspension gave them an expectation that the licences would be
permitted to operate after the election.


15. Thereafter, by order dated 22.08.2019, the Excise
Commissioner indicated that the question of continuation of the
Page 7 of 23

temporary licences was under consideration before the Excise
Directorate and that the applications would be examined having regard
to the competing interests of the economy and the public at large. The
appellants' case is that, while the issue regarding continuation of their
licences was still under consideration, Notification No. 2067-F.T. dated
27.12.2019 was issued, whereby the relevant category of licence under
Rule 4(v) was omitted from the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New
Sites and Grant of Licence for Retail Sale of Spirit and Certain Other
Intoxicants) Rules. According to the appellants, the effect of the
notification was to discontinue the category of licence under which they
had been carrying on their business.
16. The appellants challenged the said action before the Writ Court.
Their principal contention was that, having already obtained the
licences after complying with the statutory requirements and having
paid the requisite fees, they had a right to continue the licensed
business during the period of validity of the licences. It was also
contended that the State authorities could not take away the benefit of
the licences in the manner adopted without following the statutory
scheme under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909.
17. The appellants particularly relied upon Sections 30, 31 and 37A
of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. Their contention is that Sections 30 and
31 deal with the grant of licences at new and existing sites, while
Section 37A deals with selection of persons to whom licences may be
Page 8 of 23

granted. According to the appellants, when the relevant licence category
was originally introduced by the notification dated 03.10.2018, the
provisions of Sections 30, 31, 37A, 85 and 86 were invoked. However,
while omitting the said category by Notification No. 2067-F.T. dated
27.12.2019, the State authorities relied upon Sections 85 and 86 alone.
The appellants therefore contend that the amendment was made
without properly exercising the powers contemplated under Sections
30, 31 and 37A and was consequently without jurisdiction.
18. A further contention of the appellants is that the learned Single
Judge erred in treating the licence merely as a privilege and in holding
that no vested right had accrued in their favour. According to the
appellants, although the State has the power to regulate the liquor
trade, once a licence had been granted for a specified period after
fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, the licensee had a right to carry
on the licensed activity during the subsistence of the licence.
19. The appellants also contend that they had complied with the
conditions of the licences, including the requirement relating to
reporting the arrival of consignments of liquor to the Collector. They
further state that they had deposited the requisite fees and that the
business was generating revenue for the State.
20. Another issue raised by the appellants is the alleged differential
treatment between their licence category and other categories of liquor
licences. According to them, liquor shops operating under other
Page 9 of 23

categories continued to remain open, whereas the category under which
they were operating was discontinued. They contend that this aspect
required consideration with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution.
The appellants also rely upon subsequent notifications issued by the
State, including Notification No. 193-F.T. dated 11.02.2022, concerning
the regulation and licensing of dealing in foreign liquor. According to
the appellants, the subsequent licensing arrangements demonstrate
that the State had not prohibited the business of foreign liquor
altogether and that licences continued to be granted to other persons.
They contend that the subsequent treatment of existing and new
licence holders was relevant to their claim and ought to have been
considered.
21. The appellants further complain that their representations,
including the representations dated 08.08.2019 and 25.10.2021, were
not properly considered by the authorities. They also allege that
relevant notifications and materials concerning the subsequent grant of
licences were not properly placed before the Writ Court. Apart from the
challenge to the excise notification, the appeal also raises issues
concerning the proceedings in which punishment/contempt was
allegedly imposed upon the appellants. The appellants contend that the
punishment was based upon an earlier order which, according to them,
was itself erroneous and was under challenge. They therefore contend
that the consequential punishment could not have been sustained
Page 10 of 23

without first examining the correctness of the underlying order and the
legality of the action of the authorities.
22. The principal issues arising for consideration in this appeal are:
1. Whether the Notification No. 2067-F.T. dated 27.12.2019
was validly issued under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and the
relevant Rules.
2. Whether the State authorities could omit the relevant
category of licence by exercising powers under Sections 85
and 86 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 without invoking the
provisions of Sections 30, 31 and 37A.
3. Whether the amendment dated 27.12.2019 could affect
licences which had already been granted to the appellants
and were subsisting at the relevant time.
4. Whether the appellants, after fulfilling the prescribed
requirements and obtaining the licences, acquired a legally
enforceable right to carry on the licensed business for the
period of validity of the licences.
5. Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in holding
that the appellants did not have any vested right in
continuation of the licence.
6. Whether the discontinuance of the appellants' category of
licence, while other categories of liquor licences continued to
operate, amounted to arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.
Page 11 of 23

7. Whether the impugned action of the State authorities was
liable to be examined with reference to Articles 14, 19(1)(g)
and 21 of the Constitution.
8. Whether the absence of reasons in the impugned
notification/action was relevant to the question of
arbitrariness and whether the Court could independently
supply reasons for the decision of the State.
9. Whether the subsequent notifications, including
Notification No. 193-F.T. dated 11.02.2022, and the grant of
licences to other persons were relevant to the appellants'
claim.
10. Whether the representations submitted by the appellants
were required to be considered and disposed of by the
authorities.
11. Whether the consequential proceedings for
punishment/contempt against the appellants could be
sustained when the appellants were disputing the legality of
the underlying order and the action of the authorities.
23. The appeal has essentially been filed because the appellants are
aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition and by the finding that
they had no vested or enforceable right in respect of the licences
granted to them. The appellants seek reconsideration of the legality of
the Notification dated 27.12.2019, particularly its effect upon licences
Page 12 of 23

already granted to them. They also challenge the manner in which the
State authorities exercised their statutory powers and contend that
the action was arbitrary, without proper consideration of the existing
licences and the appellants' representations.
24. The appellants further seek consideration of their contention
that other licence holders were permitted to carry on the liquor
business while their category of licence was discontinued, and that
the subsequent licensing policy of the State was relevant to the
determination of their claim. The appeal also seeks interference with
the consequential punishment/contempt proceedings, on the
appellants' contention that such proceedings were founded upon an
order whose correctness and legal basis were themselves disputed.
The dispute in the appeal is therefore between the appellants' claim
that an already granted excise licence gave them a right to continue
the licensed business for its period of validity and the State's power to
alter or discontinue a particular category of licence in exercise of its
statutory and regulatory powers. The principal questions before the
Appellate Court are consequently the validity and effect of the
Notification dated 27.12.2019, the extent of the rights arising from the
licences already granted, the statutory competence of the authorities,
the alleged differential treatment of the appellants, and the legality of
the consequential proceedings against them.

Page 13 of 23

Submissions from the Bar:
25. Mr. Mitra the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellants has cited the decision of Sudhamoy Mondal vs. Collector
of Bankura and ors. Reported in 92 C.W.N. 138 in support of his
contention that when a licensee starts a liquor shop under temporary
licence he has to make a huge infrastructure and logistic support for
such business and in doing so, he has to incur a huge expense since
he has an expectation that if he runs the business in accordance with
the rules and regulations, he may obtain the regular licence. Although
he was granted temporary licence for a limited period, the nature of
business demands investment of a huge sum of money.

26. Mr. Mitra has further submitted that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation is also to be taken into consideration. In this regard, he has
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced in the
State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Brahmputra Metallics Limited,
Ranchi & Anr., Reported in (2023) 10 SCC 634 . From the said
judgment it transpires that although the Court held that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation cannot be claimed as a right in itself, but can be
used only when the denial of a legitimate expectation leads to the
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The said decision also
pointed out with the aid of previous judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court that mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in
such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but
Page 14 of 23

failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision
arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a
legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a
necessary concomitant of the rule of law.
27. Mr. Mitra has also relied on the State of M.P and Ors. Vs.
Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors. Reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566 in support of
his contention that principles laid down in this case were not
considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. Mr.
Mitra has further pointed out that the temporary licensee has a legal
right to apply for regular licence. The excise Commissioner has no
power to suspend licence under Section 42 and general election cannot
be a ground for suspension of such licence. It is only the Collector who
can issue suspension orders. Nothing was disclosed to show that the
Excise Commissioner issued any instruction to suspend the liquor
licence. Mr. Mitra has further argued that the appellants are not
claiming implementation of any fundamental right to trade in liquor,
but are claiming implementation of legal rights of renewal.
28. Challenging such submission Mr. Shiv Sankar Banerjee
appearing for the State states that trade and business in intoxicating
liquors is res extra commercium. It is a settled proposition of
constitutional law that no citizen possesses a fundamental right under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to claim as a matter of
Page 15 of 23

absolute entitlement, the grant, renewal or continuation of a license for
the manufacture, sale or distribution of liquor.
29. Mr. Banerjee has further submitted that there is a statutory bar
in automatic renewal of the liquor licence. Section 37 of the Act of 1909
explicitly provides for the grant of a license for the retail sale of any
intoxicant during any period “not exceeding six months.” As the
temporary license of the appellants expired by efflux of time the same
neither can be revived nor extended.
30. Mr. Banerjee has further pointed out Section 42 of the Bengal
Excise Act, 1909 vests the licensing authority with the plenary
statutory power to cancel or suspend a license. Section 26 of the 1909
Act explicitly empowers the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional
Magistrate to close shops where intoxicants are sold for the
preservation of public peace.
31. Mr. Banerjee has argued that the submission of the appellants
is fallacious. According to him, the central premise of the appellants’
case is the assertion that having once been granted a temporary license
under Rule 4 (q) they have fulfilled all the pre-conditions and their
premises must automatically be treated as an “existing site.” The
appellants argued that the authorities cannot revisit the site selection
conditions and must grant regular licenses or permit the continuation
of business without requiring compliance with the procedures laid
Page 16 of 23

down for new sites. There can be no promissory estoppel against the
exercise of legislative or statutory executive power. It is not correct
there was any foundational loss caused to the licensee by the omission
of rule 4(q). In support of his above contentions he has relied upon
several judgments i.e. State of Kerala v. Kandath Distilleries
reported in (2013) 6 SCC 573, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (1995) 1 SCC 574, Excise Commissioner,
U.P. Allahabad v. Ram Kumar reported in (1976) 3 SCC 540, State
of Kerala vs. Six Holiday Resorts Private Ltd. Reported in (2010) 5
SCC 186, State of Gujarat vs. Dipak Babaria reported in (2014) 3
SCC 502, State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal reported in (1986) 4
SCC 566, Kerala Bar Hotels Association v. State of Kerala reported
in (2015) 16 SCC 421.
Court’s view:
32. Needless to mention, the appellants do not have a fundamental
right in carrying out their liquor business in view of the decisions
discussed in the judgments of the learned Single Judge and also in
view of decisions cited from the side of the respondent State. The
carrying out of such business may be a privilege or a legal right, but it
is also constitutionally guaranteed that such privilege or legal right,
whatever it may be, cannot be curtailed without showing any cogent
ground. Our constitutional “grundnorm” is that a procedure or
process can be said to be in conformity with the constitutional
Page 17 of 23

safeguards only when such process or procedure is just, fair, and
right. In other words, a process or procedure can be said to be just,
fair, and right when it is based on the established principles of law. In
this case, the temporary licenses were suspended in view of the
ensuing general election in the year 2019. It is found that even after
the general election was over, the suspension of such temporary
licenses was not withdrawn and, consequently, some of the appellants
had to move the High Court and only after interference from the High
Court, such suspension order was rescinded on 22.08.2019. No
reason was forthcoming from the contents of the said order dated
22.08.2019 as to why such licenses remained suspended even after
the general election of 2019 was over. Even if we go through the
suspension order dated 02.03.2019, it is found that the temporary
licenses which were given effect from 01.01.2019 were ordered to be
suspended until further orders. The said suspension order was issued
by the Excise Commissioner, West Bengal. Section 42 of the Bengal
Excise Act, 1909, mentions that the authority who granted the
license, permit, or pass under the Act of 1909 may cancel or suspend
the same on certain conditions. The temporary licenses were granted
by the Collector of District, Nadia, and in view of Section 42 of the
Bengal Excise Act, such suspension could be done by the said
Collector. However, no doubt, the Excise Commissioner has been
given certain powers under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, but there is
Page 18 of 23

no mention in the said suspension order under which provision of law
or rule he issued such suspension. Undoubtedly, for public peace and
tranquility, such an order for dry days can be implemented, but it is
not clear, even after the general election was over, what was the
reason for keeping the temporary licenses under suspension.
33. It is true that the State has the absolute right to cancel or
suspend temporary licenses, but after granting a temporary license, if
the State chooses to suspend it for an indefinite period, the State is
under an obligation to disclose the reasons for such action. In this
case, the order dated 22.08.2019 did not indicate any reason for the
suspension of temporary licenses for a prolonged period even after the
general election was over. The temporary licenses were given 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. Does this show that the process adopted
by the State was backed by acceptable reasons? The appellants
invested huge sums of money and purchased stocks of wine, foreign
liquor, etc. Now suddenly, the said licenses were kept under
suspension without sufficient reason, even after the completion of the
general election of 2019 and the formation of the new Government. It is
true that the State has absolute rights, but when they grant a
temporary license for a limited duration, it is reasonably expected that
the State authorities should consider the condition and position of the
Page 19 of 23

appellants—who are businessmen, not criminals—in accordance with
relevant rules and regulations, and therefore, the State authorities
should have disclosed appropriate reasons for such prolongation of the
suspension order. Without taking appropriate steps, the State cannot
be allowed to say that the appellants do not have any right simply
because the stipulated period of six months has elapsed. The action on
the part of the State authorities in this regard is unjust and
unconscionable. In the order dated 09.09.2021 passed in WPA 1585 of
2020, the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that such
suspension order was made only for the purpose of public health, etc.
However, no such reason was reflected in any of the orders issued from
the side of the State authorities in this regard. Therefore, it has been
very rightly argued from the side of the appellants that the Court
cannot supplant reasons in favour of the State authorities.
34. In our view, although the appellants do not have any
fundamental right in running a liquor shop, the privilege or legal right
granted to them cannot be withdrawn without assigning any
conscionable reason. The Bengal Excise Act, 1909, and the rules made
thereunder are very specific as to when suspension or cancellation of
temporary licenses can be done. In this case, the State authorities have
failed to show any ground of default or anything of a like nature on the
part of the appellants necessitating the suspension or the prolongation
of the suspension order.
Page 20 of 23

35. Most unfortunately, the order dated 22.08.2019 specifically
mentioned that the Excise Commissioner was considering the issue of
temporary licenses expiring due to efflux of time and that within 10
weeks a concrete decision would be taken in that regard. Pending
consideration, Notification No. 2067-F.T. dated 27.12.2019 and
Notification No. 2068-F.T. dated 27.12.2019 were issued, and the
category of license under Rule 4(q) of the West Bengal Excise (Selection
of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain
Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003, was withdrawn. It is true that the
category of license under Rule 4(q) aforesaid became non-existent on
and from 27.12.2019. However, it appears that the temporary licenses
granted to the appellants were neither cancelled nor revived. The State
cannot take the plea in this type of situation that the temporary
licenses of the appellants had expired by efflux of time without giving
them the opportunity to run their businesses for the stipulated period.
Had there been any acceptable ground shown by the State authorities,
the Court could have considered the same. Without showing any reason
and without showing any default on the part of the appellants, the
State cannot assert that the appellants’ temporary licenses expired due
to efflux of time. If we accept this proposition, then our constitutional
scheme would be at stake, and the arbitrariness, unfairness, and
unjust action of the State authorities would be given priority over the
lawful and just actions of individuals. The State has absolute rights,
Page 21 of 23

but such rights should be exercised with fairness and reasonableness,
free from arbitrariness, whims, or caprice. It appears to us that the
Hon’ble Single Judges in the order dated 09.09.2021 (modified on
13.09.2021), the subsequent order dated 16.09.2021, and the order
dated 27.09.2019 of another coordinate Bench were not properly
assisted in this regard, and hence these points were not taken into
consideration from the angle discussed above.
36. Therefore, I find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellants, and in view of the peculiarity of these
circumstances, we direct the respondent State to allow the appellants
to run their businesses for the balance period as stipulated in their
temporary licenses so that they can clear out the stock piled up in their
respective shop rooms. The appellants shall be allowed to run their
shops on and from 15th December, 2026 , till the completion of the
balance portion of their six-month term.
37. In the order dated 09.09.2021 in WPA 1585 of 2020, the
appellants were granted liberty to file a fresh application, which liberty
was not challenged by the State authorities by filing any appeal against
that order.
38. Accordingly, the appellants are granted liberty to file
appropriate applications under Rule 9(1)-F of the West Bengal Excise
(Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor
and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003. If such applications are
Page 22 of 23

filed, the concerned State authorities shall dispose of the same in
accordance with law within three months from the date of application.
Furthermore, any pending representations filed on behalf of the
appellants—particularly that of Goutam Mondal and others—shall also
be disposed of by the State authorities within a period of three months
from this date in accordance with law. Consequently, the notification
nos. 2067-F.T. dated 27.12.2019 and 2068-F.T. dated 27.12.2019 be
kept in abeyance till the balance period of temporary licenses ends and
only for that purpose, so far as the appellants in three aforesaid
appeals are concerned.

39. Accordingly, MAT 812 of 2024, MAT 847 of 2022 and MAT
418 of 2025 are disposed of . No costs. Connected applications, if any
are also disposed of.
40. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
41. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for,
be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary
formalities.

I Agree.



(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.)

Page 23 of 23