Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 641 (CAL)

KALPANA BANERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-09-26

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, PRABUDDHA SANKAR BANERJEE

body2006
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS mandamus appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioners (seven in number) and is directed against the order dated August 9, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship disposed of the writ application by directing the Principal Secretary, Excise department, Government of West Bengal to implement his order dated 15th December, 2004 and in the event the petitioners or any of them cannot be tagged with the nearest warehouse, he should indicate the reasons therefor. ( 2 ) BEING dissatisfied, the writ petitioners have come up with the present mandamus appeal. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioners are all carrying on business of retail sale of country spirit and for the purpose of running those shops, they have obtained respective licences from the appropriate authorities according to the provision of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and the rules framed thereunder. ( 4 ) IN view of establishment of a new bottling plant at Sainthia, the State-respondent decided to reallocate the privilege-area of different wholesale distributors. In the past, three different writ applications were filed by various persons including the petitioners challenging the proposed reallocation of those privileged areas and a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of those writ applications by directing the Principal Secretary, Excise department to give an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and to pass a reasoned order. ( 5 ) PURSUANT to such direction given by the learned Single Judge, the principal Secretary, Excise Department, by the order dated 15th December, 2004 laid down a guidelines for allocation of the new privileged area and pursuant to the said guidelines, the various wholesale dealers were allotted with different areas in the State of West Bengal. ( 6 ) THE petitioners who are all retail-sellers are aggrieved with the said decision dated 15th December, 2004 and their grievance is that the Principal secretary has after such reallocations, tagged the country-spirit shop owners situated within Khardah Police Station, District North 24-Parganas with the bottling plant of the respondent No. 7 situated at Baranagar by de-tagging them from the warehouse situated at Barrackpore which was the nearest and convenient to the shop owners situated within the Khardah Police station. The newly allocated warehouse is at least 10 to 12 kilometres away from the present place of delivery of country-spirit in many cases. The newly allocated warehouse is at least 10 to 12 kilometres away from the present place of delivery of country-spirit in many cases. Moreover, the petitioners complain that the country-spirit shops which are situated in or around Bandel warehouse have been illegally retagged with the warehouse situated at Urdi Bazar, Chandannagar, belonging to the respondent No. 7. According to the petitioners, there was no basis or material whatsoever for detagging the petitioners from the existing source of supply to the bottling plant of the respondent No. 7 which is not only far away from the existing source of supply but also most inconvenient for all the petitioners. ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge by the order impugned herein has disposed of the writ application by directing the Principal Secretary to indicate the explanation, if for any reason, the petitioners or any of them, cannot be tagged with the newest warehouse. ( 8 ) BEING dissatisfied, the writ petitioners have come up with the present mandamus appeal. ( 9 ) MR. Mvikherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants reiterated the grounds taken in the writ application before us aud prayed for setting aside the order dated December 15, 2004 passed by the Principal Secretary. ( 10 ) AFTER hearing Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the order impugned, we find that the learned Single judge has passed specific direction upon the Principal Secretary, Excise department, to assign reason in the event any of the petitioner is not tagged with the nearest warehouse and thus, virtually has accepted the grievance if the writ petitioner in part. ( 11 ) IN our view, before the Principal Secretary has assigned any reason for not tagging the present Writ petitioners with the nearest warehouse as directed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant cannot be prejudiced in any way. ( 12 ) WE. therefore, dispose of the present mandamus appeal by directing the Principal Secretiuy. ( 11 ) IN our view, before the Principal Secretary has assigned any reason for not tagging the present Writ petitioners with the nearest warehouse as directed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant cannot be prejudiced in any way. ( 12 ) WE. therefore, dispose of the present mandamus appeal by directing the Principal Secretiuy. Excise Department, to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in the present mandamus appeal by assigning reason for not tagging the shops belonging to the present appellants with the nearest warehouse within a month from the date of communication of this order, ( 13 ) IT is needless to mention that in the event the petitioners are dissatisfied with the reasons so assigned, they will be free to challenge such decision by approaching the appropriate authority in accordance with law. ( 14 ) WE, thus, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge at this stage. The mandamus appeal is, thus, disposed of. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, 110 order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.