GAHC010015722016

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/2929/2016

JIYANTA BARUAH

S/O LT. NAREN CHANDRA BARUAH, R/O NARIKAL BARI, GUWAHATI -

781024, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,

DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006.

2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE

GOVT. OF ASSAM

EXCISE DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-781006.

3:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX

DISPUR

GUWAHATI- 781006.

4:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

GUWAHATI-781001

ASSAM.

5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

GUWAHATI - 781001 ASSAM.

6:S.K. HAZARIKA COLLEGE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL OPPOSITE ASSAM STATE ZOO R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Patowary, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. J. Ghosh, Advocate : Mr. R. R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 28.10.2025 Heard Mr. J. Patwory, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Excise Department. I have also heard Mr. B. J. Ghosh, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Respondent No.6.

2. The issue which is involved in the instant case is as to whether the continuation of the Petitioner’s IMFL ‘OFF’ license shop is permissible in terms with Rule 289 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 (for short ‘the Rules of 2016’) inasmuch as admittedly, the Respondent No. 6 which is a Junior College has a Branch which is running within the same building.

3. Though, Mr. J. Patowary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had submitted that the Respondent No. 6 is not a recognized college and as such it would not come within the mischief of Rule 289 of the Rules of 2016, but from the materials on record, it appears that the Respondent No. 6 is running its H.S. classes as would be further seen from the report which has been submitted by the Deputy Secretary (RPR), Assam State School Education Board on 12.08.2025. It further appears that under no circumstances, the Respondent No.6 can be termed to be a private coaching or a tutorial institution.

4. This Court further is aware of the fact that the right to deal with liquor is not a right conferred by the Constitution of India, it is merely a privilege and as such, the said privilege has to be exercised within the confines of extant law.

5. Upon the matter being heard at length, Mr. J. Patowary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner sought for some accommodation.

6. Considering the above, list this matter again on 01.11.2025 for further hearing as item No. 2 in the Cause List.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant