Writ relief to unseal premises was denied absent proof that the licensee had surrendered possession.

The petitioner, owner/licensor of Unit No. B-0211, measuring approximately 763 sq. ft. at City Centre, Siliguri, had granted a licence of the premises to M/s Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd. under an agreement dated 10 November 2020.

Alleging breaches relating to operational hours, the petitioner issued notices dated 31 October 2022 and 20 May 2024, the latter terminating the licence and demanding outstanding dues of ₹5,91,413.

The Excise Department conducted a raid in connection with illicit liquor allegedly stored and sold by persons associated with Indiana Bluez restaurant-cum-bar.

The petitioner contended that the raid and seizure related to Unit No. B-0210, whereas the Department had sealed the distinct Unit No. B-0211.

After the petitioner’s representation was rejected by letter dated 3 August 2026, it filed the writ petition seeking removal of the padlock and restoration of possession of Unit No. B-0211.

The State opposed the relief, relying on the Excise Department’s report placed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, in proceedings against the accused.

Whether the Excise authorities should be directed to remove the padlock from Unit No. B-0211 and restore possession to the petitioner merely because the petitioner asserted that the raid and seizure concerned the separate Unit No. B-0210.

Whether the petitioner established a presently enforceable entitlement to possession of Unit No. B-0211 after terminating the licence granted to M/s Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd., when there was no confirmation that the licensee or Samrat Dutta had surrendered possession.

Whether the writ petition ought to be entertained in the circumstances of the case.

The Court considered the proceedings initiated under Sections 46A(c) and 52 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, which formed the statutory basis for the Excise authorities’ action concerning the alleged possession and storage of illicit liquor.

The Court applied the principle that relief under Article 226 is discretionary and may be refused where the petitioner does not establish a clear and subsisting legal entitlement to the relief claimed.

In particular, a licensor’s assertion that a licence has been terminated does not, by itself, establish that possession has been restored to the licensor, especially where the licensee or occupant has not confirmed surrender of possession.

The Court noted that the Excise Department’s materials recorded the alleged involvement of Samrat Dutta and Tultuli Dutta in storing and selling illicit liquor from an unauthorised godown connected with the restaurant-cum-bar, and that the seized liquor was allegedly from a clandestine source requiring chemical examination.

Although the petitioner maintained that Unit Nos. B-0210 and B-0211 were separate premises, it had admittedly permitted Samrat Dutta/M/s Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd. to use Unit No. B-0211.

The Court found no material from the licensee or Samrat Dutta confirming that possession had been surrendered to the petitioner after termination of the licence.

Since the petitioner’s present right to possession was therefore not conclusively established, and the occupant had not sought release of the premises, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

It held that the petitioner had not demonstrated a clear present entitlement to possession, notwithstanding its assertion that the licence had been terminated.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with costs of ₹1,00,000 payable by the petitioner to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Authority.