JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 7.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the two petitioners, viz. Sri Diganta Saikia and Sri Dulal Kalita, being aggrieved by the move on the part of the Sivasagar District administration to issue IMFL "ON" license in favour of the respondent no. 7.

3. From the pleadings contained in the writ petition, it appears that the basic grievance of the petitioners are two fold. Firstly, that the IMFL "ON" shop is being sought to be established inside 100 mtrs from the midpoint of the national highway in violation of the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India and secondly that the proposed site is also within the prohibited distance of a place of worship and place of educational institution as prescribed by Rule 289(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016.

4. Taking note of the pleadings in the writ petition and after hearing the petitioners' counsel, this Court had passed an interim order dated 06.11.2020, directing status quo to be maintained as regards the IMFL "on" license. In view of the interim order dated 6.11.2020, no license has been issued to the respondent no 7 till date. As such, IA(C) No. 2218/2020 has been filed by the respondent no. 7 as applicant seeking vacation/alteration/modification of the interim order dated 6.11.2020 passed by this Court.

5. As agreed to by the learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition as well as the IA is being taken up for disposal by this common order.

6. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners submits that Rule 289 read with Rule 294 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016; casts a duty upon the authorities to make proper verification of all public complaints and only thereafter, IMFL "ON" license can be issued. But in this case, submits Mr. Mahanta, no such process has been followed by the authorities.

7. Contending that the provisions contained in the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 have the force of a statute and that the respondent no. 7 does not have any legal right to obtain the IMFL "ON" license, Mr. Mahanta submits that his clients have rightly opposed the move to issue the IMFL "ON" license on justifiable grounds but those complaints have not been considered till date. Therefore, interference in this case is called for by this Court.

8. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7/applicant, on the other hand, contends that the writ petitioners herein being residents of Ward No. 4 and 2, do not even have any locus standi to maintain this writ petition since they reside more than 100 mtrs away from the proposed site of the IMFL "ON" license shop which fall in Ward No. 10 of Amguri Town. That apart, by referring to the enquiry report dated 21.9.2020 as well as the subsequent report on public complaints dated 7.10.2020 submitted by the Inspector of Excise, Amguri, Mr. Choudhury submits that the complaints of the petitioners have been found to be completely baseless. Mr. Choudhury submits that it has been found that the proposed site is beyond the prohibited limits under Rule 289(2) of the Excise Rules, 2016 and it does not also in any manner violate the orders dated 15.12.2016 and 31.03.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also the submission of Mr. Choudhury that the authorities have complied with all the procedural formalities for issuing the IMFL "ON" license and that the complaint made by the petitioners is not bonafide. Therefore, the