Point of Law : Public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where Court concludes that decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department as well as Shri B. Deuri, learned State Counsel.

2. Considering the subject matter in question and also the written instructions received by the learned Government Advocate, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. The petitioner is a license holder of an IMFL “ON” shop being license number EX(N) 23/2019 dated 23.06.2020 in the district of Nalbari. As there were certain difficulties in operating the said shop from the existing location, the petitioner had submitted an application for shifting of the IMFL “ON” shop to a new location within the district of Nalbari. On being satisfied with the application and the ground urged, the Department vide communication dated 18.09.2021 had informed the Deputy Commissioner that the proposal to shift the shop was allowed under Rule 294 (A) of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016. The said order specifically mentioned that the shifting would be from the existing site to a new site in the rented premises of Shri Govinda Kakoti, Dag No. 435, Patta No. 173 at Katla Barkuchi, village-Bhuyarkuchi, P.O. Milanpur in the district of Nalbari. In this connection, the petitioner had also annexed the rent agreement along with the owner of the premises wherein the shop would be shifted. The necessary fee paid vide challans has also been annexed to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of completion of all the formalities, the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari is not taking any action for actual shifting of the shop.

4. Shri Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction of the Deputy Commissioner in passing appropriate orders of shifting is most likely because of an incorrect interpretation of a communication dated 21.10.2021 issued by the Department. A copy of the said communication which has been annexed as Annexure-VI in the writ petition would disclose that due to objection received from the MLA, Nalbari, issuance of IMFL “ON” license in the Nalbari district was stopped. It is submitted that the said communication would not have any application in the instant case as it pertains to new licenses whereas in the case of the petitioner it is only a matter of shifting of an existing wine shop. Shri Goswami, the learned counsel, accordingly submits that necessary directions be issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari to immediately facilitate shifting of the wine shop of the petitioner for which a number of representations were also submitted.

5. Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department submits that the Department having approved the shifting, vide the communication dated 18.09.2021, the Department does not have any objection, in principle, to the prayer of the petitioner subject to the petitioner fulfilling the requirements for such shifting. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the communication dated 22.10.2021 does not appear to be the reason for the petitioner to be aggrieved with as the same pertains to new licenses only.

6. Shri Deuri, the learned State Counsel has placed before this Court the written instructions dated 27.05.2022, a copy of which has been placed before this Court.

7. A perusal of the said written instructions dated 27.05.2022, more specifically, the instructions received against paragraph 7 of the writ petition would, however, show that the final step by the Deputy Commissioner for shifting has not been taken not because of the communication dated 22.10.2021 but because of the complaints received by the authorities. It is however, clarified that the complaints were verbal in nature and the people who had complained were unwilling to disclose their personal identities. No other grounds have been stated in the entire written instructions.

8. Complaint by the public may be a relevant factor in a matter of the present nature. However, what is p