14.09.2026 Court No. 12 Item No.01 Cp/Gb FMA 573 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Purna Chandra Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Krishnendu Sarkar Mrs. Monisha Bose Ms. Meghla Das …… for the appellant. Mr. Anirban Mitra …… for the State. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated March 18, 2026 passed in WPA 19740 of 2024. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that, as per the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as „the 2003 Rules‟), no license for retail sale of liquor or any other intoxicant could be granted within the vicinity of an educational institution and traditional place of worship. 2. Under the said Rules, if an educational institution or place of worship was within a distance of 1000 ft. from the site in question, grant of license for sale of liquor was prohibited. 2 3. Mr. Sarkar, learned advocate for the appellant, assails the order of His Lordship, inter alia, on the following grounds:- a) His Lordship failed to consider that the 2003 Rules, would not have any application to the appellants‟ case and the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail sale of Spirit and Certain other Intoxicants) Rules (in short 1993 Rules) would be applicable. 50 years ago, the appellant was granted license to sell „pachwai‟ and supplementary country spirit from a particular site. The 2003 Rules were not in existence. The said site was free for allocation at the relevant point of time. Subsequent supersession of the 1993 Rules by the 2003 Rules should not affect the prayer for shifting, inasmuch as, the 2003 Rules did not have retrospective effect. The order of His Lordship suffered from erroneous appreciation of the Rules. b) The appellant was forced to shift the site after the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors. vs. K. Balu & Anr., reported in (2017) 2 SCC 281. Had the said order of the Apex Court not been implemented, the 3 appellant would be entitled to operate from the said site. With the modification of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court by an order dated March 31, 2017, the said site once again became free from restriction. Thus, the appellant had rightly requested for shifting back to the originally allotted site. Such aspect was completely overlooked by His Lordship. c) As per the Explanation to the definition of “existing site” under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the 2003 Rules, the said site would remain an existing site forever, unless the authorities decided to abolish the same by an appropriate order or notification. d) His Lordship failed to consider that the definition of “existing site” and the Explanation in the 2003 Rules was pari materia with that in the 1993 Rules. e) The order suffered from misinterpretation of the law, wrongful exercise of jurisdiction and mechanical confirmation of the order of the authorities. f) Rule 14 (7) of the 2003 Rules also provided that, where a license of any existing site had been cancelled, withdrawn or surrendered, the Collector should select any other person for the 4 grant of license in respect of the said existing site. g) The said Rule, according to Mr. Sarkar, was clear and unambiguous, i.e. even if the appellant had surrendered his license in respect of the existing site, nothing prohibited the Collector from considering his application afresh for grant of license to him and he should be treated as a new applicant within the locality of the existing site, seeking grant of new license. h) If the site was to be treated as a new site, it could be allotted to any other person in the locality as per the Rule. The appellant‟s application to shift back to the existing site could not be rejected on the ground that, an educational institution and a Kali temple had been running in the vicinity. 4. Mr. Sarkar, relied on the decision dated March 17, 2023, in the matter of Shyamsundar Mal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., passed in WPA 907 of 2019. 5. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate for the State, submits that by virtue of the first order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, all persons who were running liquor shops within 500 metres from the state or national highways had to shift to other sites. The appellant 5 had to abide by the said order. License was allotted to the appellant to operate from another site, which was not prohibited under the law. However, the authorities found that instead of operating the retail shop from the site which was allotted after the order of the Supreme Court, the appellant was running the retail shop from another site, which was the 3rd site. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant and a proceeding was initiated. Thereafter, the offence of the appellant was compounded upon payment of fine, with a direction that the appellant will submit a prayer to shift his shop to a restriction free site. The appellant, however, requested for permission to shift to the originally allotted site which Mr. Sarkar refers to as the “existing site”. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. The contention of Mr. Sarkar, that the 1993 Rules would operate in this case, and when the original site (existing site) was restriction free at the time of allotment to the appellant, the same would continue to be restriction free, cannot be accepted by us. The West Bengal Excise (Shifting of Existing Site or Change of Premises of Excise License) Rules, 2009 is the only provision under the law which regulates shifting of site. The appellant, in effect, had prayed for shifting. 6 8. The Collector, Bankura by the order dated October 27, 2021, compounded the offence committed by the appellant in using an unauthorized site and directed the appellant to submit a prayer for shifting the shop from his present location (which was not the approved site) to a restriction free site, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. Such order was accepted by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application with a prayer to allow him to shift to the original site that was allotted prior to the order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. 9. The Deputy Excise Collector by a letter dated January 17, 2022, informed the appellant that the site offered for the proposed shifting of the shop was found to be within the vicinity of a Hindu temple and as per Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, the said site was not open for allotment. The appellant was asked to file a reply as to whether he would be able to shift the shop to any suitable and restriction free site, pursuant to the order dated October 27, 2021, passed by the ADM, General and Collector of Excise, Bankura. The ADM and Collector of Excise, Bankura passed an order on October 11, 2022, directing that the license of the appellant‟s shop would remain suspended under Section 42(1)(c) of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and 7 the shop would remain closed and inoperative until compliance of the order dated October 27, 2021, with regard to shifting of the shop to a restriction free suitable site. 10. On March 14, 2024, a hearing was given to the appellant by the Excise Commissioner, West Bengal, in connection with an appeal filed under Section 8(2) of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 from the order dated October 11, 2022. The appellant urged the question which has been urged before us, that is, the first site at Mouza – Chemela, Plot No.737, was an existing site and, as such, there was no impediment in allowing the appellant to shift to the said site. 11. The Excise Commissioner considered the facts and arrived at a conclusion that the Explanation to the definition of “existing site” in the 1993 Rules as also the 2003 Rules, would not apply to the appellant‟s case. It was observed that the appellants‟ case did not fall within the category of either lapsed or suspended or cancelled license but, the appellant was compelled to shift to another site in compliance with the direction of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. As the shifting was under compulsion, no regulatory fee had been charged from the appellant by the authority, when he was allowed to operate from another site. Instead of 8 operating from the approved site which was allotted for the second time, the appellant started functioning and operating his business from an unauthorized site, without any approval. 12. The Excise Commissioner held that the appellant had relinquished his right to carry on with the license from the existing site, by accepting the license to operate from another site. The existing site did not continue to remain available for the appellant, and he did not have any vested right for allotment of the said site. 13. The Excise Commissioner was of the view that, there was no anomaly in the order of the Collector, inasmuch as, shifting to another site or even to the original site would always be subject to the prevailing rules. 14. An appeal was preferred from the said order to the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal. Apart from a Kali temple, an ICDS Centre was operational within 1000 ft. from the existing site. The 2003 Rules prohibit operation of the site as it is within the vicinity of a religious place and an educational institution. A Anganwadi school operates from the site and children attend such school. On this ground, the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal did not 9 interfere with the order of the Excise Commissioner. 15. When the offence committed by the appellant for operating from an unauthorized site was compounded, the appellant was asked to submit a prayer for being allowed to operate from a restriction free site. The said order was passed on October 27, 2021. By then, the 2003 Rules had already come into force. Rule 8 has been rightly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It was rightly held that, allocation of site for sale of intoxicants and liquor must be in consonance with the rules. In view of the fact that an educational institution and Kali temple was in the vicinity of the said site and within the prohibited distance under the Rules, His Lordship rightly held that the authorities were correct in rejecting such prayer on the ground that the 2003 Rules prohibited use of the original site (first allotted site) as a retail shop for sale of liquor. 16. In our view, the prayer for shifting of site has to be dealt with in terms of the 2009 Rules. Rule 4.2 thereof is quoted below:- “4.2. On receipt of the application referred in sub-rule 4.1, the Collector shall be the competent authority to consider the application of shifting of an existing site for the retail sale of liquor and certain other intoxicants when the proposed site falls 10 within the same ward or Gram Panchayat where the existing site is located and the proposed site is objection free in terms of rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 as amended.” 17. The rules prevailing on the date of consideration of such prayer will be applicable. The 2003 Rules are the relevant rules. Rule 8 of the said Rules prohibit use of the existing site. 18. The decision of Shyamsundar Mal (supra) does not apply in this case, in view of the factual difference. In that case, the license holder returned to the site which was originally allotted, as per the order passed by the authority. Whereas, the appellant started operating from an unauthorized site and proceedings were initiated by the authority. The offence was compounded upon payment of fine, with a direction that the appellant should be entitled to operate from a site which was restriction free and the appellant should accordingly submit a prayer. The appellant accepted the direction, but wanted to shift to the original site which had become a restricted site in view of the subsequently established Kali temple and school. The site was no longer free from allotment. The Explanation to the definition of 11 “existing site” does not help the appellant, inasmuch as, the said Explanation clarifies that, even if the existing operator‟s license is either cancelled or has been surrendered or has lapsed, the site does not automatically cease to be a site, but can be considered for allotment as a new site to any other eligible person. That does not mean that the site will be available even if an educational institution or a temple has been established later, but within the prohibited distance. The Explanation does not have any applicability in this situation. 19. The interpretation of Mr. Sarkar that the site remains a site forever, even if there are subsequent impediments under the rules, is unsustainable. 20. Accordingly, the appeal and the application are dismissed. 21. This order will not prevent the appellant from applying for shifting to a place which is restriction free and the authority will consider such prayer in accordance with law. 22. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)