Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010110912018 2025:GAU-AS:5261 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3416/2018 ROHINI BRAHMA S/O. LT. ARJUN CH. BRAHMA, R/O. BAREIGAON, TAMULPUR, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EXCISE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY. 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY. 3:SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE BAKSA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J KHATANIAR, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 30-04-2025 Heard Mr. NJ Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the Excise Department. Page No.# 2/3 2. The petitioner’s case is that he is having an IMFL “ON” license at Bareigaon, Tamulpur within Baksa district, Assam. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court on 15.12.2016 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Balu, wherein it was directed that grant of licenses for sale of liquor along National and State Highways should be stopped, unless there was a distance of over 500 meters from the outer edge of the highway or a service lane to the said wine shop. The petitioner’s case is that due to the above order, the liquor shop of the petitioner was closed since 01.04.2017. However, due to the relaxation of the direction passed by the Supreme Court and the ultimate withdrawal of the minimum distance required for opening a wine shop in the Municipality area, the petitioner was allowed to re-open his wine shop, vide order dated 11.04.2018 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Excise, Assam. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has been paying his license fee for all the years till today. However, the petitioner could not pay his license fee for the year 2017-2018 on time, as he could not run his wine shop due to the direction of the Supreme Court passed on 15.12.2016. As such, the authority did not accept the renewal fee sought to be paid by the petitioner for the year 2017-2018. However, on withdrawal of the restrictions by the Supreme Court and consequently by the State Government, with regard to the distance that a wine shop should be located vis-a-vis the National or State Highway, the petitioner was able to subsequently pay his license fee. However, the license fee was paid along with the penalty for late fee in terms of Rule 130 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “2016 Rules”). 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the late fee was paid by the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner due to no fault of the petitioner, but due to the directions passed by the Supreme Court, which was ultimately withdrawn, the petitioner should not be made to suffer for no fault of his. Accordingly, he prays that a direction should be issued to the Excise Department to return to the petitioner, the penalty that the petitioner was made to pay for the late license fee paid for the year 2017-2018. 5. Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the Excise Department submits that the petitioner can make a representation with regard to his claim for return of the penalty submitted by him, pursuant to Rule 130 of the 2016 Rules and a decision would be taken by the respondent No. 2 within a specified time period. 6. On considering the issue raised in this writ petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should submit a representation to the authorities with regard to his grievance, regarding return of the penalty paid by him, which should be addressed to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 should thereafter take a decision on the same, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s representation. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant