Joint Settlement Of Liquor Licence Permissible Where Multiple Heirs Are Willing And Eligible: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the joint settlement of a country spirit shop licence in favour of two grandsons of the original deceased licensee, holding that Rule 14(6) of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of Licence for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicant) Rules, 2003 expressly permits grant of licence to "one or more" heirs or representatives. The Court further held that prior experience in running the liquor shop is not a statutory criterion for settlement of such licences.

A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Smita Das De dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging an order of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, directing joint settlement of the licence in favour of the appellant and his brother.

"The use of the phrase 'one or more' makes it clear that joint settlement is permissible under the Rules. The Principal Secretary did not act without jurisdiction in directing joint settlement," the Court observed.

The Bench also reiterated that judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the administrative decision.

Background

The dispute related to the licence of the Sheoraphully Country Spirit Shop, originally held by the appellant's grandfather, who died in 1971. Following several temporary settlements, the Collector, Hooghly, settled the licence exclusively in favour of the appellant in 2014.

The respondent, who is the appellant's brother and another grandson of the original licensee, challenged the settlement. While the Collector and the Excise Commissioner upheld the appellant's exclusive entitlement, the Principal Secretary, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside the concurrent findings in 2021 and directed that the licence be settled jointly in favour of both brothers.

The appellant's writ petition challenging the revisional order was dismissed by a Single Judge, following which the present appeal was filed.

Arguments

The appellant contended that he alone had expressed willingness to obtain the licence at the relevant point of time and had been managing the shop for nearly nine years without any complaint. It was argued that the respondent asserted his claim much later and that "willingness" under Rule 14(6) should be interpreted to mean promptness in approaching the authorities.

The appellant further submitted that the Principal Secretary could not overturn concurrent factual findings of the Collector and the Excise Commissioner without holding them to be perverse. It was also argued that prior experience in managing the liquor shop was an essential component of eligibility and had been wrongly disregarded.

Another contention raised was that joint settlement between two hostile brothers would be impracticable and adversely affect the business as well as revenue generation.

The respondent, however, argued that Rule 14(6) expressly contemplates settlement in favour of "one or more heirs" and contains no prohibition against joint settlement. It was submitted that the Rule does not prescribe any time limit for expressing willingness and that both parties were equally placed as legal heirs of the deceased licensee.

The respondent also pointed out that criminal proceedings alleging fraud in obtaining a no-objection certificate were pending against the appellant, making it appropriate for the revisional authority to reconsider the matter.

Court's Findings

The Division Bench held that the language of Rule 14(6) clearly authorises settlement of licences in favour of one or more heirs, provided they are willing and eligible.

Rejecting the appellant's interpretation of "willingness", the Court observed:

"The expression 'willing' cannot be confined to mean whoever approaches first."

Referring to the earlier Calcutta High Court decision in Alpana Saha v. State of West Bengal, the Bench noted that Rule 14(6) prescribes no time limit for expressing willingness and that willingness has to be assessed by the competent authority at the time of considering settlement.

The Court also upheld the Principal Secretary's power to reassess the materials on record while deciding the revision.

"The Principal Secretary considered the relevant criteria under Rule 14(6), i.e. willingness, eligibility and heirship. He applied his mind to the facts. The decision-making process does not suffer from any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety," the Bench observed.

On the issue of prior experience, the Court agreed with the Single Judge that the statutory rule requires only willingness and eligibility and does not prescribe experience as a condition for grant of licence.

"We respectfully agree with the Learned Single Judge that 'experience' cannot be a requirement under Rule 14(6)," the Court held.

The Bench relied upon its earlier decision in Narayan Prasad Gupta v. State of West Bengal, which had interpreted the expression "one or more heirs or representatives" as expressly permitting joint settlement where multiple heirs satisfy the statutory requirements.

Rejecting the contention that future disputes between the brothers rendered joint settlement impracticable, the Court held that such apprehensions could not override the statutory entitlement of an eligible heir.

"The statute permits joint licence and the possibility of future disputes between the parties cannot be a reason for denying the right of the respondent No. 4 as the heir of the original licence holder."

Holding that no illegality or perversity was demonstrated in the revisional order or the judgment of the Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Sri Bijay Saha v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No.: F.M.A. 704 of 2025

Click here to read order