15 03.09.2026 S.Seal Ct.9. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE WPA 1902 of 2026 Ambuja Realty Development Limited Versus The Officer in Charge of Excise, Bagdogra Circle, Darjeeling, Government of West Bengal and Others. Mr. Pritam Roy Ms. Silpi Basu …For petitioner Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP Ms. Esha Acharya … For State. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be retained with the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents to remove the padlock from the Unit No. B-0211 and restore the possession of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner claims that the petitioner had given license of the aforesaid Unit being no. B-0211 measuring more or less 763 sqft. on the 2nd floor, Block- D at City Centre, Siliguri, to M/s. Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd. Vide a license agreement dated 10th November, 2020 for dealing only in specific products and services. The petitioner claims that since the said M/s. Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd. had failed to comply with the terms of the aforesaid, license agreement, on 31st October, 2022, the petitioner 2 had issued a notice to Mr. Samrat Dutta of M/s. Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd. stating that M/s. Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd. had repeatedly failed to comply the rules of operational hours and the same constitutes violation of clause 6.13 of the license agreement. Subsequently, on 20th May, 2024, the petitioner had issued a termination notice thereby, terminating the license agreement and had also called upon the said Mr. Samrat Dutta of M/s. Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd. to pay the entire dues of Rs.5,91,413/-. 4. The petitioner contends that from the documents filed by the respondent no. 1 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, it would transpire that a raid had been conducted at the Unit of CCSG – B0210 and the accused person also was arrested from the said unit. The seizure list also confirms that the place searched was the unit no. CCSG – B0210 from where the articles mentioned in the seizure list were seized. It is still further submitted that Unit No. B0210 and Unit No. B0211 are the two different units. Unfortunately, the respondent no. 1 wrongfully has sealed the Unit No. B0211 without any cogent reason. Though the petitioner had made a representation to the respondents a reply whereof has been issued by the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 3rd August, 2026 without making over possession of the aforesaid writ to the petitioner. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no. 3 ought to have removed the padlock and made over possession of the 3 aforesaid unit being B0211 in favour of the petitioner especially when the relationship between the petitioner and the M/s. Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd., has been determined. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and the materials on record, it would transpire that Excise Department had conducted a raid at the locale and it was found that two owners of Indiana Bluez restaurant-cum-Bar, namely, Samrat Dutta and Tultuli Dutta are directly involved in the crime and used to store the illicit liquor at their unauthorized godown and sell the same from their adjacent bar with the help of the accused person. The liquor so seized is not from any legal source, neither the same belongs to any authorized supply chain. Morevover, since the liquor is from clandestine source, without the chemical examination report from the competent authority, the potencity of the same could not be ascertained. The aforesaid facts are recorded in the note submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of Excise, Bagdogra Circle, Darjeeling before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri while producing the accused under Section 46A(c) and 52 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. 7. In the peculiar facts though the petitioner would insist for removal of the padlock by the respondent no. 3 in respect of the Unit No. B0211, I find that the petitioner had admittedly permitted Samrat Dutta of M/s. Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd. to use the said space. Though the 4 petitioner claims that the petitioner had determined the relationship there is nothing on record from the end of M/s. Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd., or from Samrat Dutta conforming that they have made over possession in respect of the aforesaid space to the petitioner. The said M/s. Suncity Tieup Pvt. Ltd., or Samrat Dutta has not approached this Court for securing release of the space which is now in the custody of the respondent no.3. 8. This Court is thus, not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Authority. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)