Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010104232026 2026:GAU-AS:8270 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2849/2026 PUTULEE KALITA ALIAS PUTULEE RANI KALITA AND ANR DAUGHTER OF LATE ARABINDA KALITA ,RESIDENT OF PUB SITARA, RANGIA, KAMRUP, RURAL, ASSAM - 781354 2: NAYAN MAHANTA SON OF NILAKANTA MAHANTA RESIDENT OF PUB SITARA RANGIA KAMRUP ASSAM -78135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR- BELTOLA ROAD GUWAHATI -78106 ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE KAMRUP GUWAHATI ASSAM 781031 4:THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE RANGIA CO DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 781031 5:THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGIA CO DISTRICT Page No.# 2/4 KAMRUP ASSAM 781031 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (RURAL) AMINGAON NEAR DC OFFICE ROAD GUWAHATI - HAJO ROAD AMINGAON DISTRICT- KAMRUP (RURAL) 781031 ASSAM 7:THE CHAIRMAN RANGIA MUNICIPAL BOARD RANGIA MUNICIPAL BOARD KAMRUP PIN-781354 ASSAM 8:SHRI JITEN DAS SON OF SATYARAM DAS RESIDENT OF RANGIA WARD NO 7 P.O. AND P.S.- RANGIA KAMRUP ASSAM -78135 For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. M. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : MR. R.R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Heard Ms. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Excise Department. Page No.# 3/4 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had lodged complaints against the proposed grant of a excise license to the private respondent No. 8 on various grounds, including the ground of neighbourhood in terms with Rule 295 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2020. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said complaint was considered and a report was submitted by the Inspector of Excise, Rangia Co-District stating inter alia, that the petitioners had withdrawn their objections. This aspect, the petitioners came to learn on filing application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the no-objection enclosed with the report dated 09.03.2026, more particularly in respect to the petitioner No. 1, is not her signature. 3. During the course of the hearing, this Court enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners had approached the authorities on the basis that the no-objection forming the basis of the report dated 09.03.2026 did not contain the signature of the petitioner No. 1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners had verbally approached the authorities, but the petitioners ought to have submitted representation or Page No.# 4/4 complaint in that regard. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the petitioners would be well advised not to pursue with the instant writ petition, rather approach the authorities concerned informing that the no objection which formed the basis of the report of the Inspector of Excise, Rangia Co-District was not a no objection issued by the petitioner No. 1 inasmuch as the said signature of the petitioner No. 1, so appearing is a manufactured one. 5. Taking into account the above submissions, the instant writ petition stands closed. 6. It is, however, observed that the closure of the present writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioners from approaching the authorities concerned intimating that the no- objection of the petitioner No. 1 was a manufactured document. JUDGE Comparing Assistant