MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) Affidavit of service is kept on record.
(2.) The controversy in the instant writ petition centers around a notification issued by the Government of West Bengal dated 11th February, 2010 in relation to the West Bengal Excise (Change in Management) Rules, 2009. The writ petitioner has challenged an order of the Collector dated 18th April, 2018 and order of the Excise Commissioner dated 12th October, 2018 by which the writ petitioner was found to be in violation of Rule 4(2) of the notification stated above, and was directed to pay Rs. 37 lakhs (as held by the Collector) within a period of five days of receiving the demand of the Collector.
(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the notification issued under the West Bengal Excise (Change in Management) Rules, 2009 dated 11th February, 2010, does not apply to the petitioner. Counsel relies on Rule 4(2) of the said notification which states that a license granted under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 to a company ....... shall stand determined on any change of membership of the company........ unless in the case of the company, prior approval of the State Government.......... to such change is obtained." Counsel further relies on Rules 4(3) and (5) of the said notification which talks of a "proposed transferee". Counsel submits that from the said Rules it is clear that a change in membership of a company means a change in the shareholding pattern of the company. To show the bona fides of the petitioner, a cheque of Rs. 37 lakhs was sent to the concerned respondent on 18th October, 2018 as has been recorded in a letter dated 18th October, 2018 sent by the petitioner to the District Magistrate and Collector, Asansol, West Bengal. In support of his contention that the notification does not apply to the writ petitioner at all, he relies on the order passed by the Collector on 18th April, 2018 which records the changes in the Board of Directors of the company namely, the resignations and appointments of five directors in the Board of Directors of the company. According to him, such changes in the composition of the Board of Directors cannot amount to a change of membership as envisaged under Rule 4(2) of the notification.;