Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 48 (CAL)

Sujit Pramanick v. State of West Bengal

2019-01-10

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2019
JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 20th July, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 18432 (W) of 2017 (Sujit Pramanick & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge upon the Court finding no merit. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners. 4. According to the learned advocate for the appellants, the private respondent no. 6 (Mala Pramanick) in the writ proceeding, cannot succeed to the estate of the deceased licence holder because of existence of disputes. 5. We have considered the reasoning provided by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order. For convenience, the same is required to be setout in its entirety: - An order dated May 3, 2017 passed in revision by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal in relation to a liquor licence is under challenge in the present writ petition. As prayed for, leave is granted to the petitioners to file supplementary affidavit. The same be kept with the record. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, there are acrimonious disputes prevailing between the petitioners on one hand and the private respondent on the other hand. The petitioners are not in a position to carry on the business with the private respondent. The impugned order does not take into account the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, referred to be decided, by the order passed by the Court dated October 3, 2016 in W. P. 23131 (W) of 2016 (Sri Sujit Pramanick & Ors. -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The State respondents as well as the private respondent are represented. It appears that upon death of a gentleman, who was one of the licence holders, the private respondent had succeeded the estate of such deceased. The licence will form part of the estate of such deceased. The private respondent, therefore, being a natural heir and legal representative of such deceased, is entitled to a representation in the subsequent licence that may be renewed by the authorities. The licence will form part of the estate of such deceased. The private respondent, therefore, being a natural heir and legal representative of such deceased, is entitled to a representation in the subsequent licence that may be renewed by the authorities. By an order dated October 3, 2016 passed in the earlier writ petition, the revisional authority was requested to revisit the issue in the light of a decision of the Division Bench recorded therein. It appears from the record that, the revisional authority did consider the Division Bench judgment and is of the opinion that the Division Bench judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. He has given his reasons for the same. He did not believe the existence of disputes. He is of the opinion that, the disputes are created to deny the legitimate claim of a lady in distress. The reasons given in the impugned order has not been demonstrated to be perverse. In any event, a legal heir of a deceased cannot be deprived by claiming that, there are acrimonious disputes, and therefore, such legal heir has to be deleted from the licence holders. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition. W.P. No. 18432 (W) of 2017 is disposed of without any order as to costs. 6. It appears from the above that the learned Single Judge has recorded cogent and justifiable reasons as to why the Court considered the writ petition to have no merit. To avoid prolixity, we do not intend to reiterate the same. All that we can observe is that in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when the palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order which has been reproduced hereinabove we do not find any palpable infirmity or perversity. That apart and in any event, as stated earlier, cogent and justifiable reasons have been recorded by the learned Single Judge in order to justify the Court s finding that there was no merit in the writ petition. 7. For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 8. That apart and in any event, as stated earlier, cogent and justifiable reasons have been recorded by the learned Single Judge in order to justify the Court s finding that there was no merit in the writ petition. 7. For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 8. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.