M/S Honey Bar And Restaurant v. The Union Territory Of Andaman And Nicobar Islands And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA MAT/13/2024 M/S. HONEY BAR AND RESTAURANT ... APPELLANT VS.
THE UNION TERRITORY OF ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND OTHERS ...
RESPONDENTS For the appellant : Mr. C. Mano For the respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 : Mr. N. A. Khan For the respondent No.8 : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Heard on : February 17, 2026 Delivered on : February 17, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1.
The appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner/appellant and directed against the order dated February 29, 2024 passed in WPA/75/2022.
2.
By the impugned order, learned Single Judge noted that, the writ petitioner/appellant challenged intimation dated July 30, 2021
issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise). Learned Single Judge noted that, under Regulation 76(2) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Excise) Regulation, 2012, the writ petitioner/appellant possessed a right to prefer a statutory appeal. Learned Single Judge therefore, permitted the appellant/ writ petitioner to avail of the alternative statutory remedy.
3.
It is trite law that, where there exist a statutory alternative remedy, the writ court should not readily interfere. However, existence of statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar. In cases where, the order impugned, is without jurisdiction or is nonspeaking or actuated by malafide or is demonstratively arbitrary, a writ court can interfere.
4.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant received a communication dated July 30, 2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) on the application for renewal of bar licence made by the writ petitioner. By such communication, the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) referred to the pending application for renewal which was being examined by the Excise Department. The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) called upon the writ petitioner/appellant to furnish a No Objection Certificate of the recorded tenant for renewal of the bar licence. 5.
In our view, the letter dated July 30, 2021 cannot be construed to be a final decision taken by the Excise Authorities on the
application for renewal of bar licence. The application was noted to be pending. It is in the process of considering such application that the Excise Department required additional information from the writ petitioner/appellant, who was the applicant for renewal. In fact, Regulation 6.3(ii) of the Excise, Policy 2014 required the applicant to provide various information including a No Objection Certificate from the landlord.
6.
The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) cannot be said to an authority without jurisdiction in the scheme of things appearing from the facts of the present case.
7.
In any event, as rightly noted by the learned Single Judge, Regulation 76(2) of the Regulation, 2012, provides for a right of appeal to a person aggrieved by a decision taken by the Excise Department.
8.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Excise Department is yet to take a final decision.
9.
Rights of the parties are yet to be finally adjudicated. No legal right of the appellant is found to be infringed by the action of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) in issuance of the letter dated July 30, 2021.
10.
In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present appeal. MAT/13/2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
11.
At this state, the writ petitioner/appellant seeks liberty to approach the Excise Commissioner. Such liberty is already available under the regulation and the excise policy.
The writ petitioner/appellant may avail of such remedy before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 12.
I agree (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)