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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2219

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Jiyanta Baruah, S/o. Lt. Naren Chandra Baruah – Petitioner 
Versus
The State Of Assam, rep. By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Department Of Excise And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 2929 of 2016 
Decided On : 01-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. M. Deka, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. R. R. Gogoi, SC, Excise Deptt., Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Adv., Ms. P. Das, SC, Secondary Education Mr. B. J. Ghosh, Adv.

Court affirmed that an educational institution lacking current regulatory approval cannot enforce distance requirements against a licensed business operating before its establishment.

Headnote:(A) Assam Excise Rules, 1945 - Rule 183; Assam Excise Rules, 2016 - Rule 289 - Quashing of communication directing licensee to shift IMFL shop - Violation pertains to distance requirement from educational institutions - Court finds that respondent's institution did not comply with regulatory requirements for extension - Rules of 2016 supersede previous regulations; conditions on recognition of educational institutions applied. (Paras 10, 13, 18)

(B) License Issuance - Historical context of license grants and establishment of educational institutions - Court ruled that the educational institution did not have the requisite permissions to enforce the distance rule against the petitioner's business. (Paras 12, 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, operating an IMFL “OFF” License Shop since 1998, received notice to relocate based on complaints of proximity to educational institution, which lacked proper approvals for its current location.

Findings of Court:
The prior communication enforcing a distance requirement was quashed, as the respondent's institution was unaffiliated and expired in terms of regulatory approval.

Issues: The primary issues were the legitimacy of the educational institution's operational status and the applicability of distance regulations under the Assam Excise Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that prior permissions for the respondent's educational institution were lapsed and thus could not infringe upon the rights of the petitioner's license.

Result: Writ petition disposed of; order set aside.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. R. M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Excise Department; Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the District Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro); Ms. P. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Assam as well as Mr. B. J. Ghosh, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.6.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking an appropriate writ direction and order for quashing the communication dated 27.04.2016 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department thereby directing the petitioner to shift his IMFL “OFF” License Shop to any other location on the ground of violation of Rule 183 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. The petitioner further seeks appropriate directions that the petitioner may be permitted to continue to run the IMFL “OFF” License Shop in the name and style of “M/s Rishi’s Wine Hut” from the existing location at Bora Marketing Complex, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati.

3. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 have been superseded by the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2016’).

4. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the relevant facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

5. The petitioner herein was issued an IMFL “OFF” License Shop on 23.07.1998 in a location situated at Bora Market Complex, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati-5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner continued to run the IMFL “OFF” License Shop without any disturbance. On 25.02.2016, a complaint was made by the Secretary of the respondent No.6 to the Secretary, Excise Department alleging that the said petitioner's IMFL “OFF” License Shop is within 20 meters of the respondent No.6 which is a Degree College affiliated to the Gauhati University providing Higher Secondary and Degree Courses. The said communication was followed by another representation dated 29.05.2016 to the Staff Officer, Office of the Chief Secretary, Assam by the respondent No.6. Resultantly, the impugned communication was issued on 27.04.2016, thereby directing the petitioner to shift the petitioner's IMFL “OFF” License Shop to any other location in conformity with the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, within 15 days, failing which the license was to be cancelled. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. The record reveals that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, this Court issued notice and further stayed the impugned order dated 27.04.2016. The interim order thereupon has been continued from time to time.

7. The record reveals that the respondent No.6 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition supporting the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 and stating inter alia that the petitioner's IMFL “OFF” License Shop cannot be allowed to be continue in view of the violation to Rule 183 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. It is interesting to take note of that in the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.6, the permission for the respondent No.6 to run its educational institution issued by the Assam Higher Secondary Council, Bamunimaidan, dated 22.04.2002 had been enclosed. A perusal of the said permission reveals that the respondent No.6 was permitted to run its educational institution at R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati with a condition that the said educational institution would be shifted to its own building constructed in its own land within 3 years, failing which permission shall be withdrawn.

8. At this stage, it is also very pertinent to mention that the respondent No.6 was granted permission to run an educational institution at Ahomgaon, Kotakipara Road, Guwahati-781035 and this permission has been continued from time to time. However, there is nothing on

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

AI

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