The Calcutta High Court has held that Anganwadi centres qualify as recognised educational institutions for the purpose of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (New Sites and Grant of Licence) Rules, 2003. Accordingly, a liquor shop cannot be shifted to a proposed site falling within 1,000 feet of an Anganwadi centre.

A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee upheld the dismissal of a liquor shop owner's writ petition challenging the refusal of the excise authorities to permit him to shift his foreign liquor shop to his own land.

The appellant had contended that an Anganwadi centre could not be treated at par with an educational institution recognised by the State or Central Government. Rejecting the argument, the Court observed that Anganwadi centres provide pre-school and elementary education to children and are recognised under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the rules framed thereunder.

The Court held that such centres fall within the category of schools for the purpose of implementing Rule 8 of the 2003 Excise Rules.

The appeal, MAT 2297 of 2025, arose from an order dated October 5, 2023, by which a Single Judge had dismissed the appellant's writ petition, WPA 22977 of 2022.

Background

The appellant had been operating a foreign liquor shop under the name and style of 'Tinar More CS Shop' from rented premises situated at Mouza Tinar, under Sarai Tinar Gram Panchayat in Hooghly district.

Subsequently, he sought permission from the competent authority to shift the shop to his own land. The request was rejected on the ground that the proposed site was situated within 1,000 feet of an Anganwadi centre.

Challenging the decision, the appellant approached the High Court, arguing that an Anganwadi centre could not be treated as a recognised educational institution within the meaning of Rule 8(1) of the 2003 Rules.

The Single Judge rejected the contention, relying on provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012, and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the intra-court appeal.

Appellant's submissions

Advocate Bhattacharya, appearing for the appellant, argued that an Anganwadi centre could not be equated with an educational institution recognised by either the State or Central Government. He submitted that such centres were not governed by the statutory framework of the School Education Department.

He also contended that the proposed shop was situated more than 1,000 feet from the Anganwadi centre and that the Single Judge had overlooked this aspect while dismissing the writ petition.

Opposing the appeal, Additional Government Pleader Saha Dutta submitted that Anganwadi centres were covered by the expression 'educational institution' under Rule 8(1) of the 2003 Rules.

She relied on a notification dated January 20, 2012, issued by the West Bengal Excise Department, clarifying that Anganwadi centres could not be excluded from the meaning of educational institutions under the said provision.

Court's observations

The Division Bench found no infirmity or perversity in the Single Judge's conclusion.

It noted that Anganwadi centres were established under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme and provided care and elementary education to children between the ages of three and six years.

Referring to Section 2(1) of the National Food Security Act, 2013, the Court noted that an Anganwadi centre was defined as a child care and development centre set up under the Central Government's ICDS Scheme to render services under the Act.

The Bench also referred to Section 11 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which required the appropriate Government to make necessary arrangements for providing free pre-school education to children above three years of age until they completed six years.

It further examined Rule 5(5)(iv) of the West Bengal Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012. The provision requires the register maintained by local authorities to include the name of the school, pre-school, Anganwadi centre or Alternative Innovative Education Centre where a child receives elementary education up to the age of six years.

The Court observed that pre-school and elementary education were being imparted to children at Anganwadi centres and that such centres were recognised under the 2009 Act and the rules framed thereunder.

“The fact that they are educational institutions, recognized by law is not in doubt,” the Bench observed.

It accordingly held that Anganwadi centres also fell within the category of schools for the purpose of implementing Rule 8 of the 2003 Excise Rules.

Finding no ground to interfere with the Single Judge's order, the Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

However, the Bench clarified that the order would not prevent the appellant from approaching the competent authority if he maintained that the proposed site was situated beyond 1,000 feet from the Anganwadi centre. In such an event, the authority was directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law after giving the appellant due notice.

Delay condonation

Before considering the appeal, the Bench also dealt with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in presenting the intra-court appeal.

The appellant submitted that his wife, son and mother had suffered serious illnesses and had been hospitalised, leaving him mentally stressed and unable to follow up with his advocate regarding the writ petition.

The State opposed the prayer. However, the Bench found that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay and allowed the application, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, for transmission to the funds of the High Court's Juvenile Justice Committee, within three weeks.

The appeal was dismissed without any further order as to costs.