Disposed¶29

Putulee Kalita Alias Putulee Rani Kalita and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Jun 2026WP(C)/2849/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP(C)/2849/2026 | Gauhati High Court | Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah | Order dated 10.06.2026 | Objection to proposed excise licence to private respondent No. 8 (Shri Jiten Das); Inspector of Excise, Rangia Co-District report dated 09.03.2026 recorded withdrawal of petitioners' objections based on a no-objection alleged to bear a manufactured signature of petitioner No. 1; writ petition closed with liberty to approach the authorities; Rule 295, Assam Excise Rules, 2020; Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition was closed, with the Court observing that the closure shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioners from approaching the authorities concerned intimating that the no-objection of petitioner No. 1 was a manufactured document. ¶29

Putulee Kalita Alias Putulee Rani Kalita and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the no-objection enclosed with the report dated 09.03.2026 of the Inspector of Excise, Rangia Co-District, purporting to bear the signature of petitioner No. 1, is genuine, the petitioners contending that the signature is not hers. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The closure of the writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioners from approaching the authorities concerned intimating that the no-objection of petitioner No. 1 was a manufactured document.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the instant writ petition stands closed.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, order dated 10.06.2026 (Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah) in WP(C)/2849/2026 — Putulee Kalita alias Putulee Rani Kalita & Anr v. The State of Assam & 7 Ors.: The petitioners had lodged complaints against the proposed grant of an excise licence to private respondent No. 8, including on the ground of neighbourhood in terms of Rule 295 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2020. Through an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 they learnt that the Inspector of Excise, Rangia Co-District had reported that they had withdrawn their objections, based on a no-objection enclosed with the report dated 09.03.2026 which, counsel submitted, did not bear petitioner No. 1's signature and was a manufactured document. As the petitioners had merely verbally approached the authorities without submitting a representation or complaint, the writ petition was closed, with the express observation that the closure shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioners from approaching the authorities concerned intimating that the no-objection of petitioner No. 1 was a manufactured document.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010104232026

2026:GAU-AS:8270

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2849/2026

¶6

PUTULEE KALITA ALIAS PUTULEE RANI KALITA AND ANR DAUGHTER OF LATE ARABINDA KALITA ,RESIDENT OF PUB SITARA, RANGIA, KAMRUP, RURAL, ASSAM - 781354

¶7

2: NAYAN MAHANTA SON OF NILAKANTA MAHANTA RESIDENT OF PUB SITARA RANGIA KAMRUP ASSAM -78135

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS

¶10

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

¶11

2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR- BELTOLA ROAD GUWAHATI -78106 ASSAM

¶12

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE KAMRUP GUWAHATI ASSAM 781031

¶13

4:THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE RANGIA CO DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 781031

¶14

5:THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGIA CO DISTRICT

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

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

¶17

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. M. Sharma, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent(s) : MR. R.R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 10.06.2026

¶22

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.

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

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.

¶29

Taking into account the above submissions, the instant writ petition stands closed.

¶30

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 noobjection of the petitioner No. 1 was a manufactured document.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Putulee Kalita Alias Putulee Rani Kalita and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Putulee Kalita Alias Putulee Rani Kalita and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S R. K. Infracorp Private Limited Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Ucn Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Mrs Manjita Kalita Chowdhury Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ohers

Ms Bhatri Traders Vs the State of Assam

Sri Bikram Biswas Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Biman Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.