G.Mohan Das v. The Excise Commissioner And Others

IN THE HIGH COUR AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...

MA/18/2021 In WP/178/2021 With IA N.CAN/2/2021 & CAN /1/2021 G. Mohan Das Traders ... Appellant Vs.

The Excise Commissioner and Others ... Respondents Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Advocate ... for the appellant Mr. Krishna Rao, Advocate ... for the Administration Mrs. Anjili Nag, Advocate for the private respondent September 10, 2021 [SR] Item No.4 The only point, which is canvassed before this Court, is whether the writ court can pass an order in favour of the respondent when the respondent has not asked for such relief. A negative injunction was sought in the writ petition that the representation taken out by the respondent no.2 should not be considered by the competent authority and the writ petition was moved for an interim order. Obviously at the time of moving the writ petition for interim order, it was a specific stand of the appellant that the respondent no.3 is running the bar on the basis of invalid licence and, therefore, an interim order should be passed not to continue in selling the liquor under the aforesaid licence when admittedly that the appellant is the owner thereof. The trial court, while refusing the interim order, in fact,

granted relief in favour of the respondent no.3 herein directing the authority to consider her representation when she never initiated any independent proceeding nor asked for such relief by a substantive application taken out in the said proceeding. There is no impediment on the part of the court to pass an order to render complete justice to the parties but the court must be cautious while passing such an order at the interlocutory stage as it tantamounts to allowing the main relief or foreclosing the relief and rendering the same infructuous at the time final hearing of the writ petition.

It is informed by the appellant to us that so far as the running of the bar under the aforesaid alleged invalid licence is concerned, the aforesaid prayer has become infructuous for the time being, as the said respondent is not running the bar at present. However, he presses the appeal for a limited purpose mainly when a direction was passed upon the competent authority to consider the representation of the respondent no.3. We find substance in the submission of the appellant. The portion of the order by which the respondent no.2 was directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 13th May, 2021 filed by the respondent no.3 is concerned, the same is hereby set aside.

Since the parties have been directed to exchange their affidavits, the period for filing affidavit-in-opposition is extended by two weeks from date and reply, if any, shall filed within a

week thereafter and the matter is made returnable after three weeks before the next Circuit Bench.

The appeal and the connected applications are disposed of. (Harish Tandon, J. ) ( Shivakant Prasad, J. )