Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010113012025 2025:GAU-AS:7070 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2907/2025 NOOR HUSSAIN MANDAL S/O LATE NASER UDDIN MUNSHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONAKHULI PART I, HALAKURA BAZAR, AGOMAMI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: JALL HOSSAIN MANDAL S/O LATE NASER UDDIN MUNSHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONAKHULI PART I HALAKURA BAZAR AGOMAMI DIST DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI ASSAM 783301 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE DHUBRI ASSAM 783301 5:MRIDUL KUMAR MAJUMDAR S/O KHITISH MAZUMDAR RESIDENT OF DHUBRI TOWN WARD NO. 7 DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P CHUTIA, MS. S CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR A BHATRA (R-5),N CHAUDHURY(R-5),MR A DEKA(R-5),MR. M DAS(R-5),MR. B D DEKA(R-5),SC, EXCISE DEPTT. Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 02.06.2025 Heard Ms. S. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department and Mr. A. Bhatra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. The issue herein is with regard to the challenge made to the relocation of a wine shop in the neighbourhood of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners’ case is that the distance between the proposed wine shop and their residential houses is within the prohibited distance of 75 meters, in terms of Rule 295(iii) of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016. As such, the wine shop cannot be established in violation of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016. 4. The petitioners’ counsel submits that there is a pending representation dated 09.05.2025 issued by the petitioners to the respondent No. 3, which has not been decided till date. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the writ petition can be disposed of, if a direction is issued to the respondent authorities to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 09.05.2025. 6. The respondents’ counsels, on the other hand, submit that there is no violation of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 with the proposed relocation of the petitioner’s IMFL “OFF” shop. They also submit that the present writ petition has been filed on the Page No.# 3/3 same issue that had been decided in relation to Halakura Popular Senior Secondary School, vide order dated 29.01.2024 passed in WP(C) 417/2024 and order dated 05.05.2025 passed in WP(C) 1175/2024. 7. The respondents’ counsels also submit that the petitioners are well aware of the existence of another wine shop in the neighbourhood, as has been reflected in para 3 of the writ petition and as such, they cannot make a challenge to the proposed wine shop of the respondent No. 5 only. They however submit that the petitioner’s representation can be disposed of by the respondent No. 2 and the processing of the respondent No.5’s wine shop should be concluded thereafter. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the respondent No. 2 is directed to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 09.05.2025, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the processing of the petitioner’s relocation of the wine shop should be completed, depending upon the decision taken by the respondent No. 2. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant