Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010017602026 2026:GAU-AS:14531-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/769/2026 SHRI PROTEEM BHARALI S/O SHRI BHABEN BHARALI, R/O VILL RANDHONIJAN, PO MALOWPATHAR, DIST JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN 785108 -VERSUS- 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT ASSAM ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE JORHAT DIST AND PO JORHAT ASSAM PIN 785001 5:THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE JORHAT (SADAR) DIST AND PO JORHAT ASSAM PIN 785001 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT COLLECTOR JORHAT DIST AND PO JORHAT ASSAM PIN 78500 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.K. Das, Advocate. Mr. H.P. Guwala, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.N. Goswami, Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. K.P. Pathak, Advocate. Page No.# 2/6 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 30.09.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Advocate representing the State of Assam. The petitioner was granted Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) ‘Off’ licence in December, 2025 under the unamended Rules but post amendment. Prior to the amendment, there was no base fee and the licence fee also was less. The security deposit also was about 50% of the fee in the present regime for urban areas. In the month of July, 2025, the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 was amended, adding uniform initial base fee for ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) for all IMFL ‘Off’ licences without differentiating between rural and urban areas. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the licence was granted to him post the amendment but it was under the old regime and, therefore, there should be no insistence for payment of base fee of ₹ 10,00,000/- for the reason of unreasonableness without any classification. Be it noted that in an inquiry, which was conducted by the Excise Inspector, it was found that the petitioner deserved to be granted licence. He had initially made an application for an ‘ON’ licence but it was later converted into ‘Off’ licnece application. After the grant of licence, he deposited the fee required in the earlier regime as also an Page No.# 3/6 additional amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in August, 2025. While, he was granted the licnece, there was no reference to the amended Rules, which made it very clear that the grant of licence was under the unamended Rules requiring no base fee. The licence granted to the petitioner is valid only for a year, renewable at the instance of the parties, except in cases of violation of the terms of licence. Taking that into account, Mr. Das argues that only 4(four) months are left in his licence to expire and, therefore, it would be very unreasonable for the Excise Department to exact ₹ 10,00,000/- as base fee for the left-over period of his licence. He has also submitted that the application for getting such licence was filed long time ago and only on the Court’s intervention, the application of the petitioner was decided in his favour. As opposed to the afore-noted contention, Mr. Goswam has submitted that the base fee is across the board and has got nothing to do with the period under the licence. The licences are renewable as per the wish of the parties and, therefore, the base fee would be considered to be a fee for the entire time that a licencee or a proposed licencee elects to run his business. That apart, it has been argued by Mr. Goswami that in such matters, Court ought not to interfere. In order to buttress his contention, Mr. Goswami has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Limited & Ors. -Vs- State of Karnataka & Ors. :: (1995) 1 SCC 574, wherein 2(two) earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. -Vs- Nandlal Jaiswal :: Page No.# 4/6 (1986) 4 SCC 566 and Har Shankar -Vs- Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner & Ors. :: (1975) 1 SCC 737, were taken into account and it was held that there was no fundamental right in a citizen to carry on trade or business in liquor. The State under its regulatory power has the authority to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants and its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. No one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor. The principles were summarized in Khoday Distilleries Limited (supra) as “the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business does not extend to practising a profession or carrying on an occupation, trade or business which is inherently vicious and pernicious, and is condemned by all civilized societies. It does not entitle citizens to carry on trade or business in activities which are immoral and criminal and in articles or goods which are obnoxious and injurious to health, safety and welfare of the general public, i.e. res extra commercium (outside commerce).” With this exclusive regulatory power in the State, if any decision is taken to impose a one-time base fee structure for any number of years till the time a licence is subsisting, the same cannot be said to be unreasonable. So far as the argument of no reasonable classification having been carved out for rural and urban areas, the same cannot be demanded as any trade in liquor cannot be measured only in terms of the viability and profit under the licence. Page No.# 5/6 Mr. Goswami has also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu -Vs- M/s Hind Stone & Ors. :: (1981) 2 SCC 205, wherein against a contention that the application for grant of lease/ licence made long before the amendment in the Rules and that it was not open for the Government to keep applications for grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time, it was observed that while it was true that such applications should be dealt with within reasonable time, it cannot, on that account, be said that the right to have an application disposed off in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease or licence with a right to have the application disposed off on the basis of the Rules in force at the time of making of the application. The reason is that no one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease/licence and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the instant case, for the delayed consideration, the time elapsed and an amendment came in the year 2025. This amendment imposed a base fee for ₹ 10,00,000/- for the entire life on the licence, which then would be applicable to all licences granted even prior to the amendment. In that view of the matter, the only argument of Mr. Das, which is worth considering, is that in such cases, there should have been a classification on the basis of the viability or expected profit from such licences. As already noted, such matters are beyond the realm of judicial reach on account of res extra commercium. Mr. Goswami has further assured this Court that as long as the Page No.# 6/6 petitioner would require his licence to be renewed, the same would be done subject to the provisions contained in Sections 30 & 31 of the Assam Excise Act, 2000, or in cases of breach of the conditions of licence and in that case, should the petitioner continue with the licence and run his trade, he would not be required to deposit any base fee. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant