Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. - (1.) These two appeals being MAT. No. 2183 of 2004 and MAT. No. 2377 of 2004 were heard analogously as both the appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 11th June, 2004 passed by ald. Judge of the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 14945 (W) of 2003. By the judgment and order under appeal, the Id. Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and was pleased to set aside the order dated 9th December, 2002 issued by the District Magistrate and Collectorate, Bankura granting licence in favour of the private parties. The order dated 25th July, 2002 passed by the appellate authority was also set aside. The detailed facts of this case are as follows: An advertisement issued by the Government of West Bengal was inserted in newspaper on 18th January, 2001 inviting application from companies formed or societies formed by unemployed youth for issuance of an excise licence for country spirit shop at various places including Chatra More in the district of Bankura. Pursuant to such advertisement, the writ petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, claiming to be educated unemployed youth formed a partnership under the name and style of 'Paul Enterprise' and applied in the prescribed form for issuance of licence of country spirit. Similarly the private respondent Nos.7 & 8 in the writ petition, and the appellants in MAT. No. 2183 of 2004, applied for grant of the said licence. Thereafter, a lottery was held by the Directorate of Lottery, West Bengal and the position of the appellants in MAT. No. 2183 of 2004 was at the top of the panel and the writ petitioners were placed in the third position in the said panel. However, certain complaints were lodged regarding improper processing of the application for issue of licence at certain places in Bankura including the site at Chatra More. On such complaints being made, the District Magistrate and Collectorate, Bankura directed the Executive Magistrate and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bankura to hold an enquiry and in fact an inquiry was held and report of the said enquiry was also considered by the Id. Judge of the Writ Court. The report, which was submitted and which concerns the present case, shows that both the appellants were served with a notice and hearing took place on 04.01.2002 in the office of the BDO, Joypur. In the said hearing both the appellants were present and their statements were recorded. From their said statements it transpires that Rajib Chatterjee, one of the appellants lives with his brother Sanjib Chatterjee in a joint family. Sanjib is the owner of a shop called 'Light House' at Gelia More and Rajib sells electrical goods in the said shop. In connection with the said shop Rajib showed the chalan evidencing deposit of profession tax. So far as Subhendu, the other appellant is concerned, he has admitted that he dealt in potato, til and paddy by way of seasonal business. Subhendu also admitted that he took a loan of Rs.25,000/- for business from Chatra More Co-operative Bank and he could not repay the same till 04.01.02. Subhendu also admitted that his name has been registered with Chatra More Khudra Byabsayee Samity. In the report it has been commented that Subhendu was self-employed, at least partially, and the proposed site of country spirit shop was situated in the market place of Chatra More. But in the said report the Additional District Magistrate gave his views that the complaint against Rajib and Subhendu is not substantially established. The complaint against Rajib is that he is employed and that he has a shop under the name and style of Light House. But the document shows that elder brother Sanjib is owner of the shop. It was also stated in the report that Subhendu had mentioned in his application form that he is engaged in some business which is seasonal in nature and he has taken a loan from the Co- operative Bank.
(2.) In the report it has been stated that from those facts it cannot be saId that the application form submitted by Rajib and Subhendu shouId be rejected. As such, on 9th December a licence was issued in favour of Rajib and Subhendu for retail country spirit and against the saId order of grant of licence in favour of Rajib and Subhendu, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the Excise Commissioner, West Bengal. When the appeal was pending another writ petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court being Writ Petition No. 17812 (W) of 2003. Since the appeal was pending against the order for grant of licence aId. Judge, hearing the Writ Petition No.17812 (W) 2003 dId not interfere but made it clear and in our view rightly, by an order dated 28th February, 2003 that the licence, which has been granted on 9th December, 2002 for a limited period till 31stMarch 2002, shall not be renewed further than two weeks after the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. His Lordship disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellate authority to decIde the saId appeal expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of His Lordship's order and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Pursuant thereto, a final order was passed by the appellate authority namely the Excise Commissioner on 25th July, 2003 by dismissing the appeal.
(3.) Both these initial grant of licence and the saId order passed in the appeal were challenged by the writ petitioner before this Hon'ble Court. In the background of these facts the learned Judge of the Writ Court, in the judgment under appeal, came to a conclusion that at least one of the appellant namely Subhendu Chatterjee, has been in business and he was dealing in potato, paddy, til and tisi and was a member of Chatra More Khudra Byabsayee Samity. From those facts the Id. Judge came to the conclusion that a person who is a member of the Byabsayee Samity and obtains a loan from the Co-operative Bank for running a business cannot be called an unemployed youth. According to the Id. Judge a person who is sitting Idle is an unemployed youth. The Id. Judge also came to the conclusion that the authorities settling the licence are under an obligation to settle such licence in the manner prescribed in the advertisement and in the advertisement it is made clear that such settlement of licence has to be in favour of unemployed youth. The Id. Judge further came to the conclusion that the term "unemployed youth" cannot be interpreted in an arbitrary or whimsical manner to confer undue advantage on certain ineligible persons.;