Allowed

Sri Anuj Kumar Bishaya and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2026I.A.(Civil)/3156/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted an application to correct the respondent list in a connected writ petition regarding a wine shop license. The husband was wrongly impleaded instead of the actual licensed owner, the wife.

What did the court decide?

Striking off Sri. Tafique Rahman from respondents and impleading Smti. Sayesta Zelila Ahmed as respondent No. 6 in WP(C) No. 1863/2026;

Sri Anuj Kumar Bishaya and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010190522026

2026:GAU-AS:13469

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3156/2026

¶6

SRI ANUJ KUMAR BISHAYA AND ANR

¶7

SON OF LATE KSHIRUDA KANTA BAISHYA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 80 SRS ROAD UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI PS LATASIL PO UZANBAZAR DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

¶8

2: SRI WAZUDDIN AHMED

¶9

SON OF LATE SIRAJUDDIN AGMED RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 40 B C ROAD UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI PS LATASIL PO UZANBAZAR DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSA

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI 781006

¶13

2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

¶14

ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶15

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

¶16

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE DEPARTMENT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

¶17

5:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UZANBAZAR OFFICE GUWAHATI 781001

¶18

6:SMT SAYESTA ZELILA AHMED

¶19

WIFE OF TOWFIQUR RAHMAN LICENSED OWNED OF ROAD SIDE WINE SHOP SITUATED AT WARD NO 32 BHUBAN ROAD UZANBAZAR PS LATASIL PO UZANBAZAR DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO 781001 ASSA

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D J DAS,

¶21

Page No.# 2/3

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT., MR. S JAIN,S BORA

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 14.09.2026

¶26

Heard Mr. D. J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4.

¶27

By way of this application, the applicant seeks striking off the name of respondent No. 6, namely Sri. Tafique Rahman, stated to be the licensed owner of the “Road Side Wine Shop” situated at Ward No. 32, Bhuban Road, Uzanbazar, P.S. Latashil, P.O. Uzanbazar, District- Kamrup (M), Pin- 781001, from the array of respondents in connected WP(C) No. 1863/2026 and, in his place, seeks impleadment of Smti. Sayesta Zelila Ahmed, wife of Sri. Tafique Rahman, as respondent No. 6.

¶28

It appears that, while filing the connected writ petition, Sri. Tafique Rahman, was inadvertently arrayed as respondent No. 6 as the licensed owner of the aforesaid wine shop, whereas the licensed owner of the said wine shop is Smti. Sayesta Zelila Ahmed. Accordingly, the present application has been filed.

¶29

Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned counsel, submits that he has received no instructions to oppose the prayer made in this application.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that Sri. Tafique Rahman, who is the husband of Smti. Sayesta Zelila Ahmed, has

¶31

Page No.# 3/3

¶32

been wrongly impleaded as respondent No. 6 in the connected writ petition, whereas, Smti. Sayesta Zelila Ahmed, is the licensed owner of the wine shop in question.

¶33

Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impleadment of Smti. Sayesta Zelila Ahmed in place of Sri. Tafique Rahman is necessary for the effective adjudication of the connected writ petition.

¶34

Accordingly, the prayer made in this application stands allowed.

¶35

The name of Sri. Tafique Rahman shall stand deleted from the array of respondents in WP(C) No. 1863/2026 and Smti. Sayesta Zelila Ahmed, shall stand impleaded as respondent No. 6 therein.

¶36

Let an amended cause-title be submitted before the Registry for doing the needful.

¶37

The interlocutory application accordingly stands disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Sri Anuj Kumar Bishaya and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anuj Kumar Bishaya and Anr. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases