SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sudhanshu Dhulia, Manash Ranjan Pathak, JJ.
Smt. Litumoni Nath, W/o, Pankaj Deka – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by The Principal Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
WA/114 of 2021
Decided On : 03-08-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B. Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P.N. Goswami, Addl. Advocate General

Point of Law : Shifting/transfer of liquor shop - Learned Single Judge was of the opinion, and rightly so, that no right had accrued to petitioners as right can only accrue after sanction had been given by State Government - No anomaly, much less violation of any right, if shifting or transfer of liquor shops has been denied by State Government. In fact, under present law prevailing in State of Assam, such a shifting/transfer is not even permissible.

Headnote:

Assam General Clauses Act, 1915 - Section 6 - Assam Excise Rules, 2016 - Rule 294 - Appellant was petitioner - Petitioners in all the writ petitions had a licence to run I.M.F.L. '‘On', Shops and they were given - licence to run a liquor shop at a given place in a given district Allowed to shift/transfer their liquor shops to another place in another district. In other words, their prayer was for an inter-district transfer - Opening, shifting and closures of any licensed premises shall be done by the District Collector with previous sanction of the State Government. Such opening, shifting and closure - Presumably in favour of the petitioners, but since ultimately sanction had to be given by State Government before transfer order could be made in their favour and since it was not being done by State Government.

Finding of the court : Legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if Repealing Act had not been passed - Final determining authority was the State Government as the transfer was to be made from one district to another and it could not have been merely the decision of one Deputy Commissioner of a district - Merely moving an application or even reports, recommendations etc. being done on the basis of that application would not ipso facto give any right or privilege to the petitioners/applicants - Learned Single Judge was of the opinion, and rightly so, that no right had accrued to the petitioners as right can only accrue after sanction had been given by the State Government - Government has to consider various other factors, which includes public health - There is absolutely no anomaly, much less violation of any right, if the shifting or transfer of liquor shops has been denied by the State Government. In fact, under the present law prevailing in the State of Assam, such a shifting/transfer is not even permissible.

Result : Writ appeal is dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

The matter is taken up today through video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the respondents.

3. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.02.2021 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, whereby the prayers made in the writ petitions did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and the writ petitions were dismissed.

4. The present appellant Smt. Litumoni Nath was the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4872/2020. The petitioners in all the writ petitions had a licence to run I.M.F.L. ‘On’, Shops and they were given such a licence to run a liquor shop at a given place in a given district. All of them wanted that they should be allowed to shift/transfer their liquor shops to another place in another district. In other words, their prayer was for an inter-district transfer. The relevant provision under which these transfers were made earlier was Rule 294 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016.The said Rule 294 reads as under:

    “294. The opening, shifting and closures of any licensed premises shall be done by the District Collector with the previous sanction of the State Government. Such opening, shifting and closure shall not be granted—

(a) unless it has been satisfactorily established by local enquiry that proposed action is necessary in the interest of public;

(b) until any objection, which may have been filed on the subject have been considered by the District Collector;

(c) unless the Application Fee prescribed is paid.”.

5. It appears that enquiries were made by the concerned Collector, which was presumably in favour of the petitioners, but since ultimately sanction had to be given by the State Government before transfer order could be made in their favour and since it was not being done by the State Government, all of them approached this Court by filing different writ petitions, WP(C) No. 441/2021 WP(C) No. 3096/2020 WP(C) No. 5055/2020 WP(C) No. 4826/2020 WP(C) No. 4872/2020, which were heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order as already referred above.

6. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that even prior to filing of these writ petitions, the State Government had amended the Assam Excise Rules, 2016. This amendment dated 30.10.2020 was duly notified in the Assam Gazette on 31.10.2020. This amendment not only amended existing Rule 294, but also inserted a new Rule 294-A in the Rules. The new 294 Rule substituted in place of the then existing Rule 294 reads as under:

    “294. The opening and closures of any licensed premises shall be done by the District Collector with the previous sanction of the State Government. Such opening and closure shall not be granted,--

(a) unless it has been satisfactorily established by local enquiry that proposed action is necessary in the interest of public;

(b) until any objection, which may have been filed on the subject have been considered by the District Collector;

(c) unless the Application Fee prescribed is paid.”

7. Thus, we find that the important change here is that the word “shifting” existing in the earlier Rule 294 was omitted from the new Rule 294.

8. The newly inserted Rule 294-A reads as under:

    “294-A (1): The shifting of premises licensed for wholesale or retail vend of foreign liquor, country spirit and heritage alcoholic beverages from one location to another within the same district shall be allowed by the Excise Commissioner or the District Collector as the case may be, with prior approval of the State Government. No inter district shifting of any licensed premises shall be allowed.

(2) The shifting of licensed premises shall be subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions, namely:-

(a) That the Gaon Panchayat/Municipality or Town Committee/Municipal Corporation concerned in whose area the premises licensed for wholesale or retail vend is proposed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top