Liquor License Renewal Denied: Rules at Time of Consideration Apply, Appeal Dismissed with Costs.

The SC upheld the HC's decision, ruling that the appellant's liquor license should not be renewed beyond December 2013. The court determined that the applicable rules are those in effect at the time of the application's consideration rather than at the time of submission. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's liquor license application based on the rules in force at the time of application.
2. Applicability of the amended Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2003 to the appellant's case.
3. Interpretation and impact of the Excise Commissioner's Circular dated 28.9.2005.
4. Allegations of malafides and selective enforcement by the respondents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Appellant's Liquor License Application Based on the Rules in Force at the Time of Application:
The appellant, a proprietor of a hotel and restaurant, applied for a liquor license in 1992. The West Bengal Excise Rules, 1993, which came into force shortly after, did not specify a numerical distance for the term "close proximity" to educational institutions or religious places. When the Rules, 2003 were promulgated, the term "vicinity" was defined as 300 ft., and this was later amended to 1000 ft. in 2004. The appellant argued that since the application was made in 1992, the rules prevailing at that time should apply. However, the court noted that the application was processed and the license granted much later, after the 2004 amendment, making the 1000 ft. rule applicable.

2. Applicability of the Amended Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2003 to the Appellant's Case:
Rule 8 of the Rules, 2003, as amended in 2004, proscribes the grant of a liquor license within 1000 ft. of educational institutions or religious places. The court found that several such places were within 1000 ft. of the appellant's restaurant. The appellant's contention that the 1993 rules should apply was rejected because the application was not processed until after the 2004 amendment. The court emphasized that the rules in force at the time of consideration of the application are applicable, not those at the time of the initial application.

3. Interpretation and Impact of the Excise Commissioner's Circular Dated 28.9.2005:
The appellant relied on a circular issued by the Excise Commissioner in 2005, which stated that applications received before 15th April 2004 should be processed under the unamended rules. The court, however, clarified that this circular applied to applications submitted between 29.7.2003 and 2.4.2004. Since the appellant's application was from 1992 and not followed up properly until much later, it did not fall under the purview of this circular. The court noted that the appellant's application was not even proper initially and was only followed up with the necessary fee in 2006, thus making it subject to the amended rules.

4. Allegations of Malafides and Selective Enforcement by the Respondents:
The appellant alleged malafides on the part of the respondents, claiming that another restaurant operated by respondent No.4 was also within 1000 ft. of religious places but was not challenged. The court dismissed this argument, stating that even if true, it would not legalize the appellant's license. Furthermore, the court found that respondent No.4 had an existing license, and Rule 8 applied only to new sites. Therefore, the appellant's case did not benefit from this argument.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, directing that the appellant's liquor license should not be renewed beyond December 2013. The court concluded that the application should be governed by the rules in force at the time of consideration, not at the time of application, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

---