Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010077722025 2025:GAU-AS:8050 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2018/2025 BISHAL SAHA S/O LT BISWAJIT SAHA R/O TALAP BALI BAZAR TINSUKIA PIN 786156 DIST TINSUKIA ASSAMTINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 OTHERS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EXCISE DEPT,2ND FLOOR D BLOCK ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISTPUR GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR BELTOLA ROAD GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE TINSUKIA ASSAM 4:THE TENDER COMMITTEE TINSUKIA DISTRICT AS REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN VIZ THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER EXCISE TINSUKIA ASSAM 5:THE TENDER BID EVALUATION SUB COMMITTEE REP BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENTG OF EXCISE TINSUKIA ASSAM 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SADIYA DIST TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N BARUAH, MS. P DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT., Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 17-06-2025 Heard Mr. N Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the Excise Department as well as Mr. R Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection of his bid in response to the NIT for operating an IMFL “OFF” shop at TSK 3 Sunpura. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was in the prohibited proximity to Hari Kirtan Mandali, which according to the petitioner is not a public place of worship, as given in the Explanation to Rule 289 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016. 3. Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the Excise Department has submitted Para Wise comments issued to him, vide letter No. TEX.9/2025/82 dated 31.05.2025 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Tinsukia. 4. The counsel for the Excise Department submits that in terms of the above letter dated 31.05.2025 and the connected documents therein, the site where the petitioner’s IMFL “OFF” shop was proposed to be established, was at a distance of 106 meters from Namghar, 3 No. Natun Balijan, Sunpura. As the distance between the petitioner’s proposed IMFL “OFF” shop and the public place of worship was within the prohibited 150 meters, the petitioner’s application was correctly rejected. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that as the contents of the Para Wise Page No.# 3/3 comments dated 31.05.2025 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Tinsukia will have to be put to challenge and as the petitioner requires to implead some more parties, he would like to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh. 6. The letter dated 31.05.2025 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Tinsukia and the documents annexed therein are made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X collectively. 7. The prayer of the petitioner’s counsel is allowed. 8. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant