Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010210512025 2025:GAU-AS:14186 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5980/2025 DEB KUMAR GOPE S/O- NIRANJAN GOPE, R/O- DHEKIAJULI, WARD NO 3, DHEKIAJULI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784110, P.O- DHEKIAJULI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA ROAD GUWAHATI-6 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE SONITPUR DISTRICT MAHABHAIRAB MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD TEZPUR SONITPUR PIN-784001 ASSAM 4:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SONITPUR DISTRICT MAHABHAIRAB MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD TEZPUR Page No.# 2/8 SONITPUR PIN-784001 ASSAM 5:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHAKIAJULI SONITPUR ASSAM 6:THE CHAIRMAN DHEKIAJULI MUNICIPALITY BOARD DHEKIAJULI SONITPUR ASSAM-784110 7:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHEKIAJULI MUNICIPALITY BOARD DHEKIAJULI SONITPUR ASSAM-78411 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. F Khan Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. RR Gogoi, Standing Counsel Excise Department, Govt. of Assam Date of hearing & judgment: 24.10.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. F Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. RR Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, Excise Page No.# 3/8 Department, appears on behalf of the respondent authorities. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the order dated 04.07.2025, passed by the District Commissioner, Sonitpur, thereby cancelling the IMFL Off Shop License issued to the petitioner in the name of ABD Wine Shop in terms with Section 30(1) (c) of the Assam Excise Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000). 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, it is necessary to take note of that the petitioner was issued an IMFL Off Shop License bearing No.19/2024-25 on the basis of various documents including a purported No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Chairman, Dhekiajuli Municipal Board. 4. The materials on record reveal that on 07.02.2025, the Chairman, Dhekiajuli Municipal Board issued a communication to the petitioner stating inter alia that an IMFL Shop in the name of ABD had been noticed in Ward No.5 by the National Highway No. 15. It was further mentioned that for the purpose of opening an IMFL Shop, a No Objection Certificate issued by the Municipal Board was required and there was no such certificate issued in respect of ABD Shop. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to submit the No Objection Certificate along with other relevant documents before 10.02.2025 in the Office of the concerned Municipal Board. 5. In pursuance to the said communication dated 07.02.2025, the Page No.# 4/8 petitioner submitted the various documents, including the purported NOC vide the communication dated 18.02.2025. 6. It also transpires from the records that on 14.02.2025, the petitioner was informed by the Chairman of the Dhekiajuli Municipal Board that as the IMFL Off Shop had been opened in the name of ABD Shop, without taking any NOC, the petitioner was asked to close down the said Wine Shop. 7. It is also relevant to take note of that on 21.02.2025, the Executive Officer of the Dhekiajuli Municipal Board had also lodged an FIR, which was registered and numbered as Dhekiajuli Police Station Case No.49/2025 under Sections 336 (3)/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, the ‘BNS’). 8. The records further reveal that the petitioner submitted a reply on 27.02.2025 to the Chairman Dhekiajuli Municipal Board, wherein there is not a single whisper that the petitioner had obtained an NOC from the Chairman of Dhekiajuli Municipal Board. 9. It is further seen from the records of the writ petition that in pursuance to all these complaints, the Assistant Commissioner, Dhekiajuli Co-District had issued a notice to the petitioner informing him that investigation was being carried out as regards the alleged forged signature on the NOC issued in the petitioner’s name and the petitioner was asked to appear in the enquiry regarding the NOC with Page No.# 5/8 the alleged forged signature. The date and time was fixed on 10.06.2025 at 1.00 P.M for the petitioner to appear. The petitioner was also asked to bring the original NOC, any related documents, (e.g. application forms, receipts), and identification proof. 10. The petitioner admittedly participated in the said enquiry proceedings and, thereupon, the impugned order was passed on 04.07.2025 holding, inter alia, that from the said enquiry, it was found that the No Objection Certificate which was submitted by the petitioner was a forged document and, accordingly, in terms with Section 30(1)(c) of the Act of 2000, the petitioner's IMFL Off License was cancelled. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice on the ground that the petitioner was not intimated as regards the enquiry report and further the cancellation vide the impugned order, under no circumstances, can be said being based upon the enquiry report. 12. Per contra, Mr. RR Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Excise Department submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court seeking equitable jurisdiction, basing his claim on the basis of a fraudulent document. He further submitted that the Page No.# 6/8 petitioner was duly provided due opportunity to explain and after taking into account the said explanation, the impugned order was passed. 13. This Court having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and having perused the materials on record, does not find that the petitioner had placed materials before the respondent authority that the NOC which have been issued by the Chairman of Dhekiajuli Municipal Board on the basis of which the petitioner had obtained the IMFL license is a lawfully obtained document and not a forged or a fraudulent document. In fact, while replying to the communication dated 14.02.2025 of the Chairman of the Dhekiajuli Municipal Board vide the communication dated 27.02.2025 by the petitioner, there is not a single whisper that the NOC which had been issued by the Chairman of the Municipal Board had been as per the procedure. 14. The allegation that the impugned order suffers for violation of the Principles of Natural Justice in the opinion of this Court does not arise, inasmuch as, the petitioner was duly given the opportunity to explain vide the communication dated 06.06.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the petitioner had duly participated in the said enquiry proceedings. 15. This Court finds it relevant at this stage to take note of Section 83 Page No.# 7/8 of the Act of 2000 which being pertinent is reproduced hereinbelow: “83. Limitation of suits and proceedings.– No suit, prosecution or other proceeding against the Government or against any Excise Officer in respect of anything done or alleged to have been done in pursuance of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force relating to the Excise revenue, shall, except as provided in Section 69, sub-section (2) be entertained in any court unless the suit, prosecution or other proceeding is instituted within six months from the date of the act complained of.” 16. From a perusal of the above provision, it would transpire that the petitioner in terms with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with the above quoted provision can file a suit within 6(six) months challenging the impugned cancellation order dated 04.07.2025 as well as seeking necessary declaration in respect to the legality of the alleged NOC issued by the Chairman of the Dhekiajuli Municipal Board. 17. It is also the opinion of this Court that the question as to whether the NOC issued by the Chairman of Dhekiajuli Municipal Board is a lawful document or a fraudulent document cannot be decided in the present proceedings inasmuch as, the same would require detail adjudication on the basis of evidence. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find good grounds for entertaining the instant writ petition for the reasons stated above. 19. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Page No.# 8/8 20. The dismissal of the writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner in any other proceedings initiated by the petitioner. JUDGE Comparing Assistant