Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010178972025 2025:GAU-AS:11192 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4731/2025 ABHIMANYU SINGH S/O- JANARDAN SINGH, R/O- ASURMARI, MAJGAON, PATHAR GAON, HUGRIJULI, P.S. DHEKIAJULI, P.O. AND DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA ROAD GUWAHATI-6. DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE I/C SONITPUR DISTRICT MAHABHAIRAB MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD TEZPUR SONITPUR PIN- 784001 ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SONITPUR DISTRICT MAHABHAIRAB MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD TEZPUR SONITPUR Page No.# 2/4 PIN- 784001 ASSAM 5:ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF EXCISE DHEKIAJULI EXCISE CIRCLE TEZPUR SONITPUR ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. F. Khan, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. R. Gogoi, SC, Excise BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 20.08.2025 Heard Mr. F. Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court primarily challenging the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Sonitpur whereby the license so granted to the Country Spirit shop of the petitioner bearing License No.1/2025-26 was cancelled with immediate effect. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that a license upon being issued to the petitioner, a right is created in favour of the petitioner. He therefore submitted that if this right is to be taken away, at least the petitioner ought to have been put to notice so that he could place his stand as regards the enquiry so carried out. Page No.# 3/4 4. This Court enquired with Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Excise Department as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the order dated 04.07.2025. The learned counsel submitted that to his information, there was no show cause notice issued. 5. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.4 could not have passed an order thereby cancelling the license of the petitioner bearing License No.1/2025-26 without any notice being issued to the petitioner in compliance with the basic principles of natural justice. 6. Mr. F. Khan, the learned counsel further submitted that the Excise Authorities have no authority in terms with the Assam Excise Act, 2000 as well as Assam Excise Rules, 2016 to interfere with the construction of the shop. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power as regards stopping any construction may be with other authorities but not with the Excise Officials. Referring to the order dated 24.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.3, the learned counsel submitted that the said respondent would have no jurisdiction to issue such an order. The jurisdiction of the said respondent would be strictly within the confines of the Assam Excise Act as well as the Rules framed therein under. 7. This Court has duly taken note of the contents of the said order dated 24.06.2025 and from a perusal of the said order, it reveals that the respondent No.3 had directed the petitioner not to go ahead with the further construction on the ground of certain public complaints. It is the opinion of this Court that the Excise Officials under the Assam Excise Act, Page No.# 4/4 2000 as well as the Rules framed therein under would not have jurisdiction to interfere with the construction. 8. Be that as it may, the respondent No.4 who is the District Magistrate would have the jurisdiction in order to maintain the law and order. Having said so, as the respondent No.3 did not have the jurisdiction, the impugned communication dated 24.06.2025 also set aside and quashed. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned communication dated 24.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to stop construction is set aside and quashed. (ii) The impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Respondent No.4 is also set aside and quashed. (iii) This Court however observes that the setting aside and quashing of the communication dated 24.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 shall not preclude the Respondent No.4 to pass directions if so necessary for maintenance of law and order. (iv) This Court further observes that setting aside of the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Respondent No.4 shall not preclude the Respondent authorities in the Excise Department to initiate fresh process for cancellation, by giving the petitioner due notice as per law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant