Sri Sankar Kalita vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8669 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Sri Sankar Kalita vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 19 November, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010249192025




                                                              undefined

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                            Case No. : WA/368/2025

         SRI SANKAR KALITA
         S/O LATE BIPIN CHANDRA KALITA, R/O PUB SARANIA, P.O. P.S.-
         CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI,DISTRICT-KAMRUP, ASSAM-781003.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
         ASSAM, EXCISE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

         2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

          ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 781006

         3:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER

          KAMRUP (M)
          GUWAHATI.

         4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE

          OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          HENGRABARI
          KAMRUP (M)
          ASSAM 781036

         5:THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE (WEST)
          OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          HENGRABARI
          KAMRUP (M)
                                                                         Page No.# 2/7

           ASSAM 781036

           6:HATIGAON SANMILITA MAHILA PARISHAD

           KAMRUP
           GUWAHATI
           ASSAM 781038 EPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SMT. NISHA BORDOLOI
           AND ITS SECY. SMT. BANDANA HAZARIKA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MS S JAIN,MS M
ZOMUANPUII,MR J SINGH,MR H AGARWAL,MRS J M KONWAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT., GA, ASSAM




           Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3673/2025

           SRI SANKAR KALITA
           S/O LT. BIPIN CHANDRA KALITAR/O- PUB SARANIA
           P.O P.S.- CHANDMARI
            GUWAHATIDISTRICT-KAMRUP
           ASSAM-781003.


           VERSUS

           THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
           REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
           ASSAM
           EXCISE DEPTT.
           DISPUR
           GUWAHATI 781006

           2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

           ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX
           DISPUR
           GUWAHATI 781006

           3:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER

           KAMRUP (M)
           GUWAHATI.
                                                                           Page No.# 3/7

            4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE

            OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
            HENGRABARI
            KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM 781036

            5:THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE (WEST)
            OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
            HENGRABARI
            KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM 781036

            6:HATIGAON SANMILITA MAHILA PARISHAD

            KAMRUP
            GUWAHATI
            ASSAM 781038 EPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SMT. NISHA BORDOLOI
            AND ITS SECY. SMT. BANDANA HAZARIKA.
            ------------

For the Petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. B. D. Konwar, Sr. Advocate Ms. S. Jain, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Gogoi, SC, Excise Deptt.

Ms. R.B. Bora, Jr. GA, Assam

- BEFORE -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

19.11.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Advocate representing the Excise Department/ respondents.

The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 01.11.2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 1653/2023, Page No.# 4/7

whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), directing the appellant to shift his liquor shop to another location which conforms to all the norms regarding location of a liquor shop and also cautioning the appellant that if the shop is not relocated, appropriate steps would be taken for closure of the liquor shop of the appellant in terms with the Assam Excise Act, 2000, read with Assam Excise Rules, 2016, has been sustained.

The case of the appellant is that he had been running a licensed IMFL "OFF' retail shop under Licence No.52/2000-2001, since the year 2001. The licence has been regularly renewed every year, including for the year 2025-2026. In the year 2022, he had shifted his shop to a new premises at House No. 22, Banful Path, Hatigaon, after obtaining all required statutory approvals, namely, NOC from Guwahati Municipal Corporation and also from the neighbouring residents (majority of the residents had no objection) and the final sanction from the Commissioner of Excise.

The appellant had been running his shop peacefully. However, sometimes in February, 2023, 6 local residents, out of 24 residing within 75 meters of the IMFL shop of the appellant, filed objections. The objections were in the nature of expected disorderly behavior of the society in the wake of the existence of two liquor shops in the same area. There was no complaint of any nuisance or law and order problem arising out of the liquor shop of the appellant, or of any violation of excise norms by the appellant. Nonetheless, based on the afore-noted complaint filed by the 6 of the local residents, the Superintendent of Excise, Kamrup (M), issued Page No.# 5/7

a Show Cause Notice to the appellant, to which he replied on 13.02.2023. But on 23.02.2023, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), issued an order directing the appellant to shift his liquor shop forthwith to some other location, against which the appellant approached this Court by filing the afore-noted writ petition.

Mr. Konwar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), did not consider a major aspect that the majority of the local residents did not have any objection to the appellant's running his liquor shop in that locality, and that the objection raised by 6 of the residents was only in the nature apprehension in their minds that something in future could happen, disrupting the law and order situation, or could hamper the peaceful existence of the residents. Mr. Konwar submits that if this were the genuine concern of the complainants, then the complaint ought to have been directed against the other liquor shop as well, which is existing in the same locality.

Rule 294 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016, which primarily deals with closure or shifting of licensed premises, Mr. Konwar argues, has been complied with. There is no finding, while asking the appellant to relocate his liquor shop, that any public interest necessitated such relocation. The shop was relocated in its present location in the year 2022 after having satisfied all the mandatory requirements.

The appellant also grieves that no personal hearing was afforded to him before passing the order by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M). The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), primarily for the reason of 6 residents having complained against the running of the liquor shop of the Page No.# 6/7

appellant and also that trade in liquor is only under a licence, where a licensee does not have a vested or fundamental right of running his liquor shop from a particular place.

True it is that a licensee does not have any fundamental right to continue running his shop from a particular place, but once, after all norms having been satisfied, the liquor shop of the appellant was relocated at the present location, there had to be good reasons for asking the appellant to relocate his shop again. Without there being any plausible reason, any order of relocation severely hampers the right of a person to carry his trade or vocation.

We have gone through the contents of the complaints made by 25% of the local residents apprehending the possibility of law and order situation if the liquor shop of the appellant is allowed to continue at the present location.

We are at a loss to understand that if the apprehension is correct, then why was this complaint not directed against the other liquor shop running at the same locality.

Prima facie we find this to be a proxy litigation. On the other hand, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel representing the Excise Department, while defending the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and the judgment impugned in the present appeal, has submitted that there were other reasons too, but he could not demonstrate those reasons, except a bald statement that there is a dispute with respect of the ownership of the land/premises from where the liquor shop of the appellant is presently running. Thus, finding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Page No.# 7/7

(M) to be absolutely unjustified, and that no good reason has been assigned in the judgment impugned to justify the decision of the executive authority, we set aside the order dated 23.02.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), as also the judgment impugned in the present appeal.

However, we make it clear that in case any complaint is filed about any law and order problem because of running of the liquor shop of the appellant, or any breach of any excise Rules by the appellant in running his liquor shop, the respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate action as per law.

The writ appeal stands allowed and disposed off.

                          JUDGE                  CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant