K.Nachammal v. Kamal Restaurant And Bar And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ** MAT/826/2020 IN IA No: CAN/2/2020 IA No: CAN/3/2020 IA No: CAN/1/2020 K. Nachammal ... Appellant Vs.
Kamal Restaurant and Bar and others .... Respondents Mr. K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate ... for the appellant Mr. Krishna Rao, Advocate ... for the Administration Mrs. Anjili Nag, Advocate ... for the private respondent September 7, 2021 [SR] Item no.10 Re: CAN/3/2020 This is an application for condonation of delay for filing of the application seeking leave to appeal. After perusing the averments made therein and after hearing the respective counsel, we are satisfied that the explanation given therein for untimely filing of the application seeking leave to appeal as the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause beyond his conceivable authority. Hence the delay in filing the application for seeking leave to appeal is condoned. The application being CAN/3/2020 is allowed Re: CAN/1/2020 This is an application seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgement and order dated September 02, 2019
passed in WP No.201 of 2019 ( Kamal Restaurant and Bar and another vs. The Lieutenant Governor and others) on the premise that the applicant is seriously aggrieved by the said order as the grievances raised before the authority was not considered at all.
The record would reveal that the aforesaid writ petition was taken out by the applicant therein challenging the order dated November 19, 2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman rejecting the application for renewal of the bar licence for the year 20152016. Since the application for renewal of the bar licence was rejected, there was no occasion for renewal of such licence for a subsequent period. The said order was challenged primarily on the ground that despite having satisfied and fulfilled all the conditions as enshrined in the guidelines 20 of the Andaman and Nicobar Excise Regulation, 2012, the authorities have unreasonably rejected the said application and reason assigned therein is not in consonance with the aforesaid provisions of the regulations. The Court set aside the said order with the categorical finding as under:
"There has been no case made by the Authority, I earlier writ petitions nor this one that there was move to cancel petitioner's licence, while subsisting. Resistance is for renewal of the same by purporting to cancel it upon expiry. On query from Court Mr. Mandal submits, there is no provision in the guidelines regarding renewal. Court notices rule 19 does not entitle him claim for renewal or damages
as consequence of refusal to renew but unlike the guidelines, rule provides, licence granted thereunder will be for such period. It appears to this Court, what will hold the field regarding petitioner's case is the guidelines because it provides for annual licence without similar provision disentitling renewal. Impugned order, even if looked at in context of case for cancelation of licence, does not speak of rules or regulations or terms or conditions governing licence, as not followed by petitioner. So far as adequate safeguards being taken by petitioner, as licence, to ensure running of licence does not impose upon peaceful living of people in the area, the order says nothing. In above facts and circumstances, impugned order appears to be without reasons and same is set side."
Ultimately, the Court directed the authorities to renew the licence as there is no case for withholding the same has been made out. The present applicant has challenged the said order upon seeking leave to file an appeal as they raised an objection before the authority for renewal of the licence as it hampers peace and tranquility of the locality. Though it has been stated by the applicant that despite the impugned order, the renewal has not taken effect but the same is seriously disputed by Mr. Krishna Rao appearing for the Administration and Mrs. Anjili Nag appearing for the private respondents. According to them, pursuant to the said direction, renewal has already taken effect and the period of such renewal has since been expired, another application for renewal of licence is pending for consideration before the authority.
The challenge is made to an order after such a long time when the order has been duly complied with and the interest fortified has already been exhausted, and, therefore, it is a stale claim which does not require any interference. Furthermore, there is nothing on record which would suggest the petitioner to be an aggrieved person at least on the day of the disposal of the writ petition and therefore, we do not find any leave is required to be given to the application to challenge the impugned order. Since the application for renewal for subsequent period is pending before the authority, it goes without saying, the authority will follow the procedures of the regulation and will decide the case independently without being swayed by the observations having been made in earlier proceedings.
Re: CAN No.2 of 2020 and MAT No.826 of 2020 In view of the disposal of the application seeking leave to appeal, other connected application as well as the memorandum of appeal have become infructuous and accordingly dismissed.
(Harish Tandon, J. ) ( Shivakant Prasad, J. )