The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that a business’s prior operation does not exempt it from compliance with CRZ restrictions when applying for an Excise licence. The judgment upholds the primacy of statutory environmental protections and is binding precedent for subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/23928/2024 of MILI MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0470992024 |
| 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 within West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Environmental Law, Excise Licensing, Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether prior operation of a hotel and bar-cum-restaurant exempts it from CRZ-based licensing restrictions |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The existence of an operational hotel does not exempt it from compliance with CRZ restrictions when seeking an Excise licence. The court held that the location falls within the CRZ as confirmed by both the Institute of Environmental Studies and Wetland Management and the Excise authorities. The site’s construction over the seaward side (CRZ-II) is in contravention of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 2011. As such, the licensing authority was justified in denying the licence, and the writ petition was dismissed. The High Court refused to direct the Excise authority to grant or consider the licence contrary to CRZ norms. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The decision is based on government notifications and expert confirmation by the Chief Administrative Officer of the Institute of Environmental Studies and Wetland Management that the site falls within restricted CRZ-II. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner’s application for an Excise licence to run a bar-cum-restaurant at a site in Mandarmoni was denied on grounds that the site is within the CRZ as per the 2011 Notification. The Excise authority’s decision was based on precise geographical coordinates and official environmental reports confirming CRZ status. The petitioner argued prior operation of the hotel should exempt it, but this was rejected. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, lawyers in environmental/Excise licencing matters in India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court clarified that operational status of a business does not override statutory CRZ restrictions during licensing.
- Environmental regulatory authorities’ reports and notifications are decisive in Excise licencing decisions within coastal zones.
- Lawyers should note the necessity of geographic and regulatory compliance, irrespective of any prior commercial activity.
- Arguments based on prior occupancy or operation alone are insufficient where statutory environmental prohibitions are explicit.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The Calcutta High Court noted the Excise authority relied upon a categorical report from the Institute of Environmental Studies and Wetland Management confirming the site’s location in the CRZ-II area. The site was constructed on the seaward side, explicitly placing it within the restricted zone as per the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 2011. The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that prior operation of the hotel exempted it from CRZ-based licensing rules. The decision underscored that statutory environmental restrictions override individual equities or business interests. The High Court ultimately found the authorities acted within their jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Denied the site falls within the CRZ where a licence cannot be issued.
- Argued that since the hotel was already operational, CRZ restrictions should not apply to the licence application.
- Sought a direction to the authorities to grant or consider granting the licence.
State/Respondent
- Relied on instructions from the Excise Superintendent and environmental authorities.
- Asserted that the business location falls within the CRZ as per expert environmental reports and the 2011 Notification.
- Maintained that granting the licence would be in contravention of binding CRZ regulations.
Factual Background
The petitioner applied for an Excise licence to run a bar-cum-restaurant from an existing hotel under the Mandarmoni Coastal police station. The Excise authorities denied the licence, citing that the site falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ-II), confirmed by official reports and mapped coordinates. The petitioner argued operational status of the hotel justified the grant of licence. The State relied on environmental compliance and statutory prohibition.
Statutory Analysis
The court applied the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 2011, which prohibits certain types of commercial construction and activity within CRZ-II (seaward side) areas. The judgment emphasized the binding nature of such environmental notifications on all licensing authorities and applicants.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were delivered; the judgment was singular.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or innovations were set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed existing environmental regulatory law and its application to Excise licensing decisions.