1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/389/2026 M/s De Foret Hotel and Resort Pvt.Ltd Vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and another Mr. D.C.Kabir, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Ajith Prasad … for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das … for the respondents August 07, 2026 [SR] Item no.3 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner ( Excise), South Andaman. 2. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the bar licence at the hotel. The reason indicated in the impugned order is that the petitioner has been convicted in criminal proceedings. 3. It further appears from the records that in respect of FIR No.0014 dated 15.05.2025 under sections 406, 409, 420, 463, 467, 471, 120B, 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. It further appears that the FIR has been investigated and charge sheet has been filed. The charge sheet has not put to committal and charges have not been framed. Hence, the Trial Court has not commenced in respect of the FIR. 5. Treating the FIR as a predicate offence, the Enforcement Directorate appears to have taken and registered ECIR Case No.KLZO-II/11/2025 dated 21.07.2025. 6. ECIR case is pending for hearing before the District & Sessions Court. 2 7. Since the writ petitioner has disclosed all necessary facts and current status of the criminal proceedings, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by calling for affidavits in this writ petition. 8. It is now well settled that the registration of an FIR and charge sheet would not ipso facto amount to offence under the law. It is only after conclusion of the trial and conviction thereunder that a person is called a convict. 9. It is therefore explicitly clear that the findings in the impugned order that the petitioner has been convicted in the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR and ECIR is ex facie erroneous and incorrect. 10. In the light of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order. 11. The respondents are therefore directed to process the application of the petitioner for renewal of the excise licence as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of communication of copy of this order. 12. Needless to mention that in the event of conviction of the petitioner, it would be open for the respondents to take steps having regard to the principles and provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and other statues. 13. With the aforesaid observations, WPA/389/2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )