M/S Honey Bar And Restaurant v. The Union Territory Of Andaman And Nicobar Island And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/75/2022 M/s. Honey Bar and Restaurant Vs.
The Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal .... for the Petitioner Mr. Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the Administration Mr. N. A. Khan ... for the Respondent nos. 4-7 Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz ... for the Respondent no.8 February 29, 2024 [AKB] Item No.14 Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned intimation dated 30th July, 2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) asking the petitioner to produce "No Objection Certificate" from the landlord with regard to the use of his premises by the petitioner for the sale of liquor/beer/RTD if it is not owned by the petitioner for renewal of its bar licence as per existing Excise Policy, 2013 clause 6.
3 (ii), without challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid policy itself. Petitioner also challenges the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) in issuance such intimation by contending that the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) is the appropriate authority for issuance of such intimation but he could not show any rules and regulations/law in support of his contention for enforcing his so called legal right before this writ Court. Learned Advocate representing the respondent Excise Authority in opposing this writ petition takes the point of maintainability of the same on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal under Regulation 76 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Excise Regulation, 2012.
intimation/order has acted in accordance with law and as per the Excise Policy, 2013 under clause 6.3 (ii) of the said policy and the, authorities are very much empowered to ask for submission of such "No Objection Certificate" and in case of failure to comply such requisition, authorities are justified in not renewing the bar licence. It appears that even no order rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal has been passed and the authority has simply asked to comply with the formalities as per clause 6.3 (ii) which the petitioner has not complied with.
Learned Council representing the respondent no. 8, being the owner of the premises-in-question, has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the impugned notice/intimation itself has not been issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) himself and he has acted as per the direction of the authority concerned. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the parties and Regulation 76 (2) of the aforesaid Regulation, 2012 and clause 6.
3 (ii) of the Excise Policy issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration /Secretariat and in view of the fact that petitioner itself has not challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid policy under which petitioner has been asked for such "No Objection Certificate" for renewal of bar licence and there is failure on the part of the petitioner to satisfy this Court from any specific provision of law that the impugned intimation/order has not been issued by the authority having jurisdiction and as to who is the authority concerned to issue such intimation for consideration of his application for renewal of bar licence I find no merit in this writ petition being WPA/75/2022 and accordingly the same is dismissed.
(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)