Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8945 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 27 November, 2025

                                                                   Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010172562025




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:16342

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/4428/2025

         KABERI DAS
         W/O. SRI PARTHA CHOUDHURY, R/O. H/NO. 79, K.K. BHATTA RAOD, FIRST
         FLOOR, SATYANARAYAN LOTUS, P/S. LATASIL, GUWAHATI-781003, DIST.
         KAMRUP (M)


         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         EXCISE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
         ASSAM
          HOUSEFED COMPLEX
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6

         3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          KAMRUP (M)
          DIST. KAMRUP (M)
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM
          PIN-781036.

         4:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          EXCISE DEPARTMENT
         ASSAM SECRETARIAT
          DISPUR
         ASSAM
          PIN-781006
                                                                Page No.# 2/8

                                  BEFORE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR


Advocate for the petitioner(s)     : Mr B D Das, Sr. Adv,
                                     Mr J Lotha.

Advocate for the respondent(s) : Mr D Gogoi,
                                 SC, Excise

Date on which judgment was reserved : NA


Date of pronouncement of judgment      : 27.11.2025


Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA
operative part of the judgment?
Whether the full judgment has been      : Yes
pronounced?



                 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr B D Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr J Lotha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Excise, appearing on behalf of the

2. The grievance in this writ petition is that the petitioner is the refusal of the respondents to issue the IMFL On-Shop License to the petitioner in consonance to the sanction already granted by the communication dated 20.05.2025. The petitioner, operating a restaurant in the name and style of M/s Angel Restaurant at Pandu Page No.# 3/8

Sadilapur, in the district of Kamrup, had applied for IMFL On-Shop License in her restaurant by converting the name to M/s Angel Bar and Restaurant. On consideration of the application filed by the petitioner and on deposit of the application fees, due verification had been carried out by the respondents in the Excise Department, and, thereafter, the Government had granted sanction for the IMFL On-Shop License by the order dated 20.05.2025. The petitioner, thereafter, deposited the requisite amount towards license fees and security amount etc. Acting on the sanction issued for grant of license, the petitioner had also carried out the renovation of her business premises. However, the respondents did not issue the IMFL On-Shop License and the petitioner had to approach this Court by preferring WP(C) No. 4222/2025. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the writ petitioner since the respondents had taken the stand that the respondent No. 2 had requested the respondent No. 3 to halt issuance of IMFL On-Shop License to the petitioner, despite the sanction having been already granted. This writ petition has now been instituted assailing the letter dated 26.05.2025, and praying for directions to the respondents to issue the IMFL On-Shop License to the petitioner in consonance to the sanction already granted by the communication dated 20.05.2025.

3. Mr B D Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the documents annexed to the writ petition would show that the respondents have already carried out all the requisite enquiries regarding the application of the Page No.# 4/8

petitioner for grant of an IMFL On-Shop License and in furtherance of the sanction being accorded, the petitioner has also taken all steps necessary on her part to ensure that the issuance of the license is not delayed. Referring to the communication dated 26.05.2025, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the said letter was issued referring to a letter received from the Hon'ble Minister of Excise, which, in turn, referred to a widespread resentment among the public, students and the faculties of the Gauhati University against grant of license to the petitioner.

4. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that when all enquiries had been conducted by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of Assam Excise Manual, mere resentment by certain groups of people, who are not entitled to raise objections for issuance of such license, would not be a ground for the respondent authorities to deny the petitioner her right to carry out the business in accordance with law.

5. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the decision to keep the issuance of the license on hold had been taken without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and in fact, when such objections are not required to be entertained under the provisions of the relevant rules, the same should not have been entertained to the disadvantage of the petitioner.

6. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to the Judgments delivered in the case of Deputy Commissioner -Versus- M/s 2 Bandits Restaurant; decided by the Delhi High Court and Page No.# 5/8

reported in 2022 Supreme (Del) 872; the Judgment and Order of this Court passed on 22.06.2020, in the case of Jayanta Prasad Banik -Versus- State of Assam & Others [WP(C) No. 1751/2019]; and the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2022, passed by this Court in the case of Amlan Jyoti Mahanta & Another -Versus- The State of Assam & Others [WP(C) No. 6339/2021], to buttress that public opinion or sentiment is not a factor relevant for germane under the Act for locating a liquor vend.

7. Per contra, Mr D Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the Excise Department has submitted that it was due to the widespread public resentment, particularly from the students and faculty of the Gauhati University against the grant of the aforesaid license, that the Department had to keep the issuance of the license on hold. He has referred to the memorandum submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam by the All Assam Students' Union, whose representation had expressed that liquor shop would act as a catalyst in destroying the academic environment of the University. He submits that therefore, there is no illegality in the Excise Department refusing to issue license to the petitioner till such time, as the differences are sorted out.

8. This Court has considered the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties.

9. Rule 289 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016, is relevant for the Page No.# 6/8

purpose of tracing the detailed procedure laid out when consideration is made by the respondent authorities as to the feasibility or otherwise of allowing an On-Shop Liquor License to an applicant. The said Rule is quoted hereunder for a ready reference:

"289. (1) The liquor shops of any description should not be

located at sites to which the neighbours object on ground which upon enquiry appear to be reasonable and free from malice or ulterior motive.

(2) No IMFL and Beer retail 'OFF' licence or retail `ON' licence shall be established in Municipal corporation areas within a distance of 50(fifty) meters, in Municipality and Town Committee areas within a distance of 100 (one hundred) metres and in Gaon Panchayat or equivalent body areas within a distance of 150 (one hundred fifty) metres from any place of public worship or educational institution or hospitals. No licence for retail sale of liquor or any other intoxicants shall be granted at a site situated within 100 (one hundred) metres from the midpoint of any National or State Highway.

(3) Premises for the wholesale and retail sale of foreign liquor shall not be allowed within the same compound."

10. From a perusal of the Rules, it appears that the liquor shops should not be located at sites to which, neighbours object, that no IMFL or Beer Retail OFF License and ON License shall be established in a municipality corporation area within a distance of Page No.# 7/8

50 metres from any place of public worship or educational institution or hospital.

11. The educational institutions referred to in the said Rule would mean primary school, middle school and high school or any college affiliated to any University, but would not include private coaching or tutorial institutions.

12. This Court has referred to the term-"educational institutions", without referring to the other definitions given, since in the present case, the objections appear to have come from the Students' Union and the objections raised relate to the disturbance that may be caused in the academic environment of the Gauhati University.

13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the provisions of Rule 295 (iii), which is to the effect that for the purposes of Rule 289, objections from owners or occupiers and residents of the neighbourhood located within a radius of 75 metres of the premises involved shall be considered.

14. In the present case, it is noticed that the enquiry had already been conducted and it is only thereafter, the Government sanction has been granted for issuance of the IMFL On-Shop License.

15. In the case of Amlan Jyoti Mahanta (supra), this Court has held that the objections raised by residents, who were outside the 75 metres' radius of the proposed IMFL On-Shop would not have any bearing, inasmuch as, the relevant provisions of law do Page No.# 8/8

not require their objections to be taken into account. This Court is also of the opinion that since no procedural lapse on the part of the petitioner has been pointed out by the respondent authorities in making the application and there were no objections till the time when the sanction was granted for issuance of the license, mere objections filed later by persons who do fall within the ambit of the Rules governing the issuance of license, the respondents cannot withhold the issuance of the license only on the basis of such objections.

16. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed, directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps for granting the IMFL On-Shop License to the petitioner, in accordance with the sanction already granted by the Government through its communication dated 20.05.2025, subject to the petitioner still fulfilling all the requisite required norms, as was required to be fulfilled by her at the time of the sanction. The respondents shall take all necessary steps for issuance of the license as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

17. Writ petition accordingly, stands disposed of.

18. No cost(s).

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant