Calcutta High Court Calls Indefinite Excise Licence Suspension Unjust, Lets Liquor Shops Resume From December 15
An indefinite excise licence suspension that outlasted the 2019 General Election without disclosed reasons is “unjust and unconscionable”, the Calcutta High Court has held, directing the West Bengal Government to let liquor shops shut since then reopen for the unexpired part of their licences.
Kolkata: Licensees whose shops were shut ahead of the 2019 General Election must be allowed to trade again for the balance of their six-month licence term, the Calcutta High Court ruled on Friday, November 13, 2026. The West Bengal Government, it held, could not keep temporary liquor licences suspended indefinitely without giving reasons [Barun Malakar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray delivered a common judgment in three connected appeals, MAT 812 of 2024, MAT 847 of 2022 and MAT 418 of 2023, with Justice Apurba Sinha Ray writing it. The appeals challenged Single Judge orders that had dismissed the licensees’ writ petitions. The judgment had been reserved on October 6, 2026.
Reasons must be disclosed
“It is true that the State has the absolute right to cancel or suspend temporary licenses, but after granting a temporary license, if the State chooses to suspend it for an indefinite period, the State is under an obligation to disclose the reasons for such action.”
The Bench noted that the licences were granted by the Collector of Nadia district, while the suspension came from the Excise Commissioner, and that the suspension order did not cite the provision under which the power was exercised. It found no reason disclosed for keeping the licences suspended long after the election, and no allegation of default or breach of licence conditions against the licensees, who had invested in infrastructure and bought stocks of wine and foreign liquor.
“The action on the part of the State authorities in this regard is unjust and unconscionable.”
The Court remarked that the licensees were businessmen and not criminals, and disagreed with an earlier Single Judge’s view that the suspension was meant to protect public health, as no such reason appeared in the State’s orders. It held that the Court could not supply reasons the authorities themselves had not given. Since the licences were neither cancelled nor revived after the suspension was lifted, the State could not now say they had expired when the licensees were never allowed to use them for the stipulated period.
From a six-month licence to a shuttered shop
Through a notification of October 3, 2018, the State created a new licence category under Rule 4(q) of the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2003, allowing shops to sell all kinds of liquor except tari and pachwai. The appellants were granted temporary licences for six months. On March 2, 2019, the Excise Commissioner suspended all such shops “until further orders”, citing the General Election and instructions of the Election Commission.
The election ended on May 23, 2019, but the suspension continued. After the licensees moved the High Court, the Excise Commissioner rescinded the suspension on August 22, 2019, yet the shops were not allowed to reopen. The order said continuation of the licences would be considered on demand and supply, law and order and other factors. Before any decision, the State issued notifications on December 27, 2019 omitting the licence category altogether. In a connected appeal, holders of foreign liquor ‘Off’ shop licences under Rule 4(v) challenged Notification No. 2067-F.T. of the same date.
Legitimate expectation against res extra commercium
Senior Advocate Aninda Kumar Mitra, for the appellants in two of the appeals, argued that licensees had made heavy investments on the expectation that, having complied with the rules and paid the fees, they would be allowed to trade. Relying on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the appellants said the State could not arbitrarily withdraw licences already granted. They also contended that the Excise Commissioner had no power under Section 42 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 to suspend licences granted by the Collector, and that the election could not justify a suspension that outlasted it.
Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra, appearing for the State, argued that liquor trade is res extra commercium, that there is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to the grant or continuation of a liquor licence, and that the temporary licences, capped at six months under Section 37 of the Act, had expired by efflux of time and could not be revived.
What happens from December 15
The State was directed to allow the appellants to run their shops from December 15, 2026 until the remaining portion of their original six-month licence term is completed, so that they can clear their accumulated stock. The appellants were given liberty to apply under Rule 9(1)-F of the 2003 Rules, and any such applications, along with pending representations including those of Goutam Mondal and others, are to be decided within three months. Notifications Nos. 2067-F.T. and 2068-F.T. of December 27, 2019 will stay in abeyance till the balance licence period runs out, only for the appellants in these three appeals. All three appeals were disposed of without costs.
Why the judgment matters
Liquor trade may be a privilege rather than a right, but the ruling makes clear that the State’s wide power over it must still be exercised fairly and with reasons on record. A suspension tied to an election cannot quietly become a permanent closure, and the State cannot rely on a licence’s expiry when its own unexplained inaction kept the licensee from using it. Courts, the Bench stressed, will not fill in justifications the government never gave.
Case Title: Barun Malakar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [MAT 812 of 2024], with Goutam Mondal & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [MAT 418 of 2023] and Raju Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [MAT 847 of 2022]
Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, Calcutta High Court
Date of Judgment: November 13, 2026
For the Appellants (MAT 812/2024 and MAT 847/2022): Senior Advocates Aninda Kumar Mitra and Arindam Banerjee with Arpita Saha, Ashis Kumar Mukherjee and Saurabh Prasad
For the State: Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra with Amit Chakraborty, AGP, Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Falguni Bandopadhyay and Soma Chakraborty
Thanks for reading LawChakra
Get the day’s key court rulings by email or WhatsApp. Free.