The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that absence of proper documentation proving regulatory compliance — particularly with respect to Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) restrictions — precludes judicial intervention for grant of excise licences. This decision upholds prior administrative practices and serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction for licensing disputes involving restricted zones.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
|
| Date of Registration | 19-09-2024 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether an excise licence can be granted in the absence of a clearance certificate concerning Coastal Regulation Zone restrictions, especially where the petitioner cannot produce required supporting documentation. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court refused to intervene in the absence of documents permitting operation of a bar within the site in question. The petitioner failed to establish that the location does not fall within the CRZ, nor produced any official authorisation or clearance for business there. As a result, the writ for grant of excise licence is not maintainable, and relief cannot be granted for sites in restricted or regulated zones without satisfaction of prerequisite documentary requirements. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | WPA 23928 of 2024 (Mili Mandol –vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought issuance of an excise licence to run a bar, allegedly at a site functional for nine years. Authorities had previously refused a similar application citing the petitioner’s inability to submit a CRZ clearance certificate. The petitioner denied the site fell under CRZ, but failed to provide any document authorising operation of a bar there. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts deciding similar excise/licence petition matters involving regulated/restricted zones. |
| Follows | WPA 23928 of 2024 (Mili Mandol –vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the necessity for clear, authoritative documentation proving compliance with CRZ norms when seeking excise licences.
- Clarifies that denial of a licence, in the absence of requisite regulatory clearance, will not be disturbed by writ courts.
- Reference to “functioning for nine years” without documentation is not sufficient; official, current authorisation is essential.
- Lawyers must ensure submission of all necessary clearances and certificates when approaching Courts for such relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the established practice in similar matters (WPA 23928 of 2024) where absence of a CRZ clearance certificate led to refusal of licence applications.
- Although the petitioner denied that the site falls within the CRZ, no documentary evidence or regulatory authorisation was produced to support this claim.
- The Court found that merely alleging long-standing business operation is insufficient without proper permissions.
- Consequently, the Court held it cannot grant the relief (i.e., order the licence issuance) without appropriate documents, particularly in cases involving regulated or restricted zones.
- The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Denied that the proposed site for business falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone.
- Claimed the place has been functional for the last nine years.
Respondent (State)
- Relied on denial of similar relief in WPA 23928 of 2024 due to absence of CRZ clearance.
- Asserted that petitioner failed to provide necessary clearance certification or documentary proof.
Factual Background
The petitioner applied for an excise licence to operate a bar at a site he claimed was in use for nine years. The licensing authority had declined to issue the licence because the petitioner could not present a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance certificate. Although the petitioner denied the site fell within the CRZ, no supporting document was produced permitting operation of the bar at the relevant place.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court addressed the requirement of clearance under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms for businesses seeking excise licences.
- Emphasis was placed on the mandatory production of documentary proof (such as clearance certificates) from relevant authorities before invoking the Court’s jurisdiction for grant of such licences.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows and reiterates principles applied in previous similar matters (e.g., WPA 23928 of 2024), affirming existing law regarding regulatory compliance and licencing in restricted zones.