Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010093382025 2025:GAU-AS:6260 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2626/2025 SHREE SHREE BANGSHI GOPAL MANDIR AND NAMGHAR AND 3 ORS. SITUATED AT PACHIM BORAGAON, GOTANAGAR, UNDER MOUZA- JALUKBARI, WARD NO. 06 (OLD) / 10 (NEW), P.O- GOTANAGAR, P.S- GARCHUK, GUWAHATI- 781033, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM AND REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, SRI ADI KANTA KOCH AND THE SECRETARY, SRI TARUN SARMA OF PACHIM BORAGAON RAIJ PARICHALANA SAMITY 2: PACHIM BORAGAON RAIJ PARICHALANA SAMITY A NON-GOVERNMENT SOCIAL ORGANISATION BEARING REGISTRATION NO. RS/ KAM (M)/ 263/ C/ 25 OF 2013-2014 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT PACHIM BORAGAON GOTANAGAR UNDER MOUZA- JALUKBARI G.M.C. WARD NO.06(OLD) / 10(NEW) P.O- GOTANAGAR P.S- GARCHUK GUWAHATI- 781033 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM AND REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT SRI ADI KANTA KOCH AND THE SECRETARY SRI TARUN SARMA 3: ADI KANTA KOCH SON OF LATE GARORAM KOCH RESIDENT OF PACHIM BORAGAON GOTANAGAR UNDER MOUZA- JALUKBARI G.M.C. WARD NO.06 (OLD)/10(NEW) P.O- GOTANAGAR P.S- GARCHUK GUWAHATI-781033 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.--- PRESIDENT OF PACHIM BORAGAON RAIJ PARICHALANA SAMITY Page No.# 2/8 4: TARUN SARMA SON OF LATE KAMALA KANTA SARMA RESIDENT OF PACHIM BORAGAON GOTANAGAR UNDER MOUZA-JALUKBARI G.M.C. WARD NO.06 (OLD)/10(NEW) P.O- GOTANAGAR P.S- GARCHUK GUWAHATI-781033 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. SECRETARY OF PACHIM BORAGAON RAIJ PARICHALANA SAMIT VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (METRO) DISTRICT HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE KAMRUP (METRO) DISTRICT HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM. 5:M.D. WINE SHOP AN IMFL OFF SHOP BEARING LICENSE NO. 94/1998-99 REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SRI CHIDANANDA BAISHYA SITUATED AT PACHIM BORAGAON GOTANAGAR UNDER MOUZA- JALUKBARI G.M.C. WARD NO.06 (OLD)/ 10(NEW) P.O- GOTANAGAR P.S- GARCHUK GUWAHATI-781033 KAMRUP (M) Page No.# 3/8 ASSAM 6:CHIDANANDA BAISHYA SON OF LATE PRIYALAL BAISHYA RESIDENT OF EASTERN ENCLAVE F-2 LAKESHWAR BARUAH PATH NEW GUWAHATI OPPOSITE HANUMAN MANDIR P.S- NOONMATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BORA, N J LOUCU,MR D BARMAN,MR. P CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 19-05-2025 Heard Mr. P Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the petitioner No. 1 is a religious institution, which has been managed by the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the respondent No. 6 had established his M.D. Wine Shop (respondent No. 5), an IMFL “OFF” shop bearing License No. 94/1998-99 at Pachim Boragaon, Gotanagar, under Mouza- Jalukbari, G.M.C. Ward No. 06 (old)/10(new), P.O.- Gotanagar, P.S.- Garchuk, Guwahati-781033, Kamrup (M), Assam in the year 2021, after approval had been given by the respondent authorities in terms of the order dated 27.08.2020 passed in WP(C) 3153/22020 and order dated 21.09.2020 passed in I.A.(Civil) No. 1429/2020, for transferring his shop from Sualkuchi, Kamrup (Rural). 3. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the respondent No. 6 was earlier running his Page No.# 4/8 business at Napara, Sualkuchi, Kamrup (Rural). However, with the permission granted by the authorities, the respondent No. 6 has shifted his IMFL “OFF” shop to a distance of around 90 meters from the petitioner No.1 institution. 4. The petitioners’ counsel further submits that during the year 2021, it had come to the knowledge of the petitioners that the respondent No. 6 had taken signatures of known and unknown persons collusively, showing them as local people of the Pachim Boragaon area, though they were not of the said area. Further, there are already two wine shops in the area, i.e. in the same area where the respondent No. 6 has established his wine shop, i.e., (i) M/s Boragaon Wine Shop and (ii) M/s Thank You Wine Shop. The above two wine shops are owned by different persons and not by the respondent No. 6. 5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that though the petitioners had submitted various representations to the authorities, to set aside the decision of the respondent authorities, in allowing the respondent No. 6 to shift his IMFL “OFF” shop from Sualkuchi Town to a location in Pachim Boragaon, Gotanagar, as the same was done in violation of Rule 289 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), the same has not been done. He accordingly, submits that due to the reasons stated above, the respondent No. 6’s establishment should be shut down. 6. Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the Excise Department, on the other hand, submits that the shifting of the respondent No. 6’s wine shop from Sualkuchi Town to Pachim Boragaon, Gotanagar has been made in terms of Rule 289 of the Rules and it is beyond the prohibited limit of 50 meters from the petitioner No. 1 institution. 7. Further, an enquiry had been conducted by the respondent authorities prior to granting permission to the respondent No. 6, for transfer of his wine shop to the present place of establishment. All the requirements having been fulfilled by the respondent No. 6, there was no reason for the State respondents to shut the wine shop of the respondent Page No.# 5/8 No. 6. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. Rule 289 of the Rules provides as follows:- “(1) The liquor shops of any description should not be located at sites to which the neighbours object on ground which upon enquiry appear to be reasonable and free from malice or ulterior motive. (2) No IMFL and Beer retail 'OFF' licence or retail `ON' licence shall be established in Municipal corporation areas within a distance of 50(fifty) meters, in Municipality and Town Committee areas within a distance of 100 (one hundred) metres and in Gaon Panchayat or equivalent body areas within a distance of 150 (one hundred fifty) metres from any place of public worship or educational institution or hospitals. No licence for retail sale of liquor or any other intoxicants shall be granted at a site situated within 100 (one hundred) metres from the midpoint of any National or State Highway. Explanation: "distance" 'referred in sub-rule (2) above shall be measured from the mid-point of the entrance of the shop, alongwith the nearest paths by which a pedestrian ordinarily reaches to the midpoint of the Nearest gate of the institution, if there is compound wall and if there is no compound wall to the midpoint of the nearest entrance of the institution. "Educational institutions" for the purpose of this rule means any Primary School, Middle School and High School recognized by the State Government or Central Government or any College affiliated to any University established by law, but does not include any private coaching or tutorial institution. “Public place of worship” for the purpose of this rule means, a place of public worship having a pucca structure with a covered area of more than 200 square feet which is managed or owned by a registered public trust or a well-established and recognized management committee. "Hospitals" for the purpose of this rule means, any Government Hospital, Primary Health Centre or Primary Health Unit and includes Private Nursing Home, which has facility of a minimum of 30 (thirty) beds for treatment, of inpatients. Page No.# 6/8 For the purpose of this rule such part of National Highway or State Highway which are situated within the limits of any Municipal Corporation. Municipality or Town Committee, shall not be treated as restriction: Provided that even when any place of public worship or educational institution or hospital comes into existence subsequent to the establishment of the licensed premises, the aforesaid distance provision shall apply, subject to the provision that the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to shift or relocate his premises. (3) Premises for the wholesale and retail sale of foreign liquor shall not be allowed within the same compound.” 10. Rule 289 of the Rules provides that no IMFL 'OFF' licence or retail `ON' licence shall be established in Municipal corporation areas, within a distance of 50(fifty) meters from any place of public worship or educational institution or hospital. In the present case, the wine shop of the respondent No. 6 being beyond 50 meters from the petitioner No.1 institution, it is seen that there is no violation of Rule 289 of the Rules. Further, when the said respondents have initiated an enquiry, which has gone into various facets as to whether the Rules would be violated while implementing the transfer of the establishment of the respondent No. 6 and the State respondents have found that all the requirements were fulfilled for transferring the shop of the respondent No. 6, there is no reason for this Court to go beyond the decision taken by the State respondents, especially when the petitioners have not been able to show as to what enforceable fundamental or legal right of the petitioners has been violated. Further, there is nothing to show that the State respondents have not done their constitutional or legal duties prior to transferring the establishment of the wine shop of the respondent No. 6. 11. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Supreme Court has held that it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order Page No.# 7/8 etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Supreme Court further held that the expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. 12. One of the reasons of challenge to the establishment of the wine shop of the respondent No. 6, is that “no objection” for setting up the wine shop had been taken by the respondent No. 6, by taking signatures of known and unknown persons collusively from amongst the local people and non local persons of Pachim Boragaon area. This Court finds that when there has been an admission that signatures of known local people has been taken, as has been stated by the petitioners in their averment made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, this Court cannot have a roving enquiry, with regard to who were those alleged unknown persons, who had given their signatures. Further, the respondent authorities have already held an enquiry with regard to questions of facts and have thereafter allowed the respondent No. 6 to change the location of his wine shop from Sualkuchi Town to Pachim Boragaon, Gotanagar, which has been done in the year 2021. 13. A reading of Rule 289 of the Rules provides that no IMFL “OFF” shop should be established in a municipal corporation area within a distance of 50 meters from a place of worship. The petitioner No. 1 is a place of worship, which is being run by the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. As there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the distance between the wine shop of the respondent No. 6 and the petitioner No. 1 is beyond 50 meters, it cannot be said that there is any violation of Rule 289 of the Rules in respect of Page No.# 8/8 the distance between the two places. With regard to whether there was any objection to the setting up of the wine shop by the neighbours of the wine shop, there is nothing to show that the petitioners herein are neighbours of the wine shop of the respondent No. 6. In any event, when the petitioners have categorically not denied the fact that signatures have been taken from known persons with regard to whether there was any objection in setting up of the wine shop from neighbours, the petitioners cannot rake up an issue after four years, when the provisions of the Rules have been followed. While the respondent No. 6 had transferred his wine shop to the present area as far back as the year 2021, the petitioners have filed this writ petition only on 01.05.2025 and as such, it is the view of this Court that there is delay and laches in filing the present writ petition. 14. The above being said, the petitioners have interestingly not taken up cudgels against the two other wine shops, i.e., (i) M/s Boragaon Wine Shop and (ii) M/s Thank You Wine Shop, which are also operating in the area in which the respondent No. 6 has established the present wine shop. 15. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its discretion in the present case. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant