Mahendra Deka v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Gauhati High Court observed that objections against a licensee shifting an IMFL shop had withdrawn. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the Deputy Commissioner to revisit the decision and grant final permission within one month after verifying the withdrawal of complaints.
What did the court decide?
Direction to Respondent No. 3 in consultation with Respondent No. 2 to take a final decision on granting permission to open the IMFL shop within one month of receipt of certified copy of this order.
What the court decided
Page No. 1/5
GAHC010046562023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1190/2023
MAHENDRA DEKA
S/O LT. MATIRAM DEKA R/O VILL. HATIBANDHA PO. PURANA TANGLA P.S TANGLA DIST. UDALGURI ASSAM PIN 784528
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 6
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISUR GUWAHATI-6
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDALGURI
ASSAM PIN 78410006
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to open his IMFL 'On' license shop at the new site after prior approval was obtained but subsequently denied due to objections that were later withdrawn.
Whether the Respondent is required to revisit the prior decision denying permission to shift the IMFL shop in light of withdrawn objections.
Whether the Writ Petition should be disposed of by directing the Respondent to take a final decision on the matter within a specified time.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mahendra Deka
- respondent
The State of Assam
- respondent
The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam
- respondent
The Commissioner of Excise Assam
- respondent
The Deputy Commissioner Udalguri
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Gauhati HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP(C)/1190/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court