Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) Order dated 25.2.2015 passed by the Excise Commissioner, West Bengal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground as barred by limitation has assailed before this Court. It appears that by an earlier order dated 13.1.2012 the Commissioner had remanded the matter to the ADM (G) & Collector, Alipore, South 24 Parganas to reconsider the settlement of the F.L. 'Off' licence of M/s. Wine Stores, Diamond Harbour after giving a hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondents herein. Such decision of the Commissioner came to be challenged by the private respondent no.4 in W.P. 5140 (W) of 2012 wherein a Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition, inter alia, holding as follows: "The issue as to whether the statutory appeal was entertainable after expiry of the period towards preference of such statutory appeal has not been answered by the said respondent no.2. The observation of the said respondent no.2 to that effect, the excise authorities had sent several letters to all the joint licensees for hearing before the ADM & Collector, before permanent settlement under Rule 14(6) of the West Bengal Excise Settlement of Retail Licenses Rules published under 800-Ex on 29th July, 2003, does not stand fortified through appropriate documents and records. On the said limited grounds, the impugned order dated 13th January, 20912 passed by the respondent no.2 is set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to consider the statutory appeal preferred by the respondents afresh, in the light of the observations made above, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and the private respondents herein and to pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law and to communicate the same to the writ petitioner and the private respondents. The said exercise should be completed by the said respondent no.2 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order".
(2.) Pursuant thereto the issue of limitation was considered by the Commissioner and it was held by the impugned order dated 25.2.2015 that as no document explaining the delay was readily available and give the authority had no power to condone the delay, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no notice was served upon them as has been observed by this Court in the aforesaid writ proceeding. He, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal ought to be considered on merits.;