Disposed

Niranjan Kumar Ray v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 May 2024WP(C)/2317/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged approval orders allowing respondent No. 5's IMFL Off shop to shift within 200 metres of his own shop, citing Rule 288 of the Assam Excise Rules requiring a 1 km distance in rural areas. With consent of both sides, the court directed the District Commissioner to decide the petitioner's representation after hearing both parties within three weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Niranjan Kumar Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010085852024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2317/2024

¶5

NIRANJAN KUMAR RAY S/O SUSHIL KUMAR RAY R/O WARD NO. 23, BAKHRAPARA DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783380

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶8

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM

¶10

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT COLLECTOR DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM

¶11

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM

¶12

5:RANJAN KUMAR SAHA S/O NARAYAN CHANDRA SAHA R/O VILL AND P.O. BASHBARI P.S. KAJIGAON (BTAD) DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSA

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B GOGOI

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT.

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 03.05.2024

¶19

Heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the approval orders dated 20.02.2024 and 07.03.2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Dhubri and Commissioner of Excise, Assam, which approved the shifting of the IMFL OFF shop of the respondent No. 5 from Choltogumma to a location next to the petitioner’s IMFL Off shop, should be set aside.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that the IMFL OFF shop of the respondent No. 5 is hardly 200 meters away from the petitioner’s shop, which is in violation of Rule 288 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016, which provides that the distance of 2 excise shops of similar description in rural area should be 1 K.M.

¶21

Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for IMFL Off Shop, pursuant to a tender process and the same was allotted to him on 12.02.2024. However, the State respondents have allowed the respondent No. 5 to transfer his wine shop next to the petitioner’s shop on 07.03.2024. He submits that the same would seriously affect the business of the petitioner, who has incurred a huge expenditure for allotment of his licence shop.

¶22

Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.03.2024 to the District Commissioner, Dhubri to relocate the shop of the respondent No. 5. However, the same has not

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

been considered till date. He submits that the writ petition can be disposed of, if the respondent No. 3 disposes of the petitioner’s representation dated 18.03.2024, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5.

¶25

Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. G. Bakalial, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submit that they have got no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel.

¶26

In view of the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 18.03.2024, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Niranjan Kumar Ray v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Niranjan Kumar Ray v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hafizur Rahman Prodhani Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Vinayak Sales Corporation Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Chitrakar Dev Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ranu Choudhury Vs the Board Secondary Education Assam and 6 Ors.

Mozaffor Hussain, Vs Bikram Kairi, IAS and 3 Ors.

Ram Prasad Das Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 5 Ors.