Calcutta HC Orders State To Let 2019 Poll-Halted Liquor Licensees Resume From Dec 15, 2026, For Balance Of Six-Month Terms

The appellants held temporary excise licences, generally granted for six months, to operate liquor shops.

On 2 March 2019, the Excise Commissioner suspended the shops’ operation in connection with the General Election. The election concluded on 23 May 2019, but the suspensions continued; the order was rescinded on 22 August 2019, without permitting the appellants to resume business for the unexpired licence period.

The appellants challenged the suspension and non-restoration of their licences. In the related appeal, the appellants also challenged notifications dated 27 December 2019, which omitted the relevant licence category from the applicable Rules. Their writ petitions were dismissed, and the appeals were heard together.

Under Section 42 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, the authority that granted a licence may suspend or cancel it on the statutory grounds; Section 26 provides for closure of liquor shops for public peace.

Section 37 contemplates retail licences for a period not exceeding six months.

Although there is no fundamental right to trade in intoxicating liquor, a licence or privilege granted by the State cannot be curtailed arbitrarily: State action must be fair, reasonable and supported by cogent reasons.

The Court also relied on the principle that a court cannot supply reasons that the State itself did not give.

The Court found that the licences had been suspended shortly after they took effect, ostensibly in connection with the election, and that the suspension continued after the election ended.

The suspension order did not identify the legal provision relied on, and the later order rescinding it gave no reason for the prolonged suspension. The State also identified no default by the appellants warranting suspension.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the State could not deny the appellants the benefit of the licensed period merely by asserting that the licences had expired by efflux of time.

The Court considered that allowing the category’s subsequent omission to defeat the appellants’ claim, without a stated justification for the earlier suspension, would perpetuate arbitrary and unfair State action.

It granted liberty to apply under Rule 9(1)-F of the 2003 Rules and directed the authorities to decide such applications, and pending representations, within three months.

Notifications Nos. 2067-F.T. and 2068-F.T., both dated 27 December 2019, were directed to remain in abeyance, only as to these appellants and only until the balance licence period ended.

The appeals were disposed of without costs.