JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Challenge made in W.P.(C) No.2856/2012 is to the order dated 29-03-2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) directing temporary closure of the licensed premise (bar) of the petitioner under section 52(1) of the Assam Excise Act, 1910. 2. In the course of hearing of W.P.(C) No.2856/2012, a related issue of considerable public importance had surfaced, which engaged the attention of the Court. The related issue is the indiscriminate and mushroom opening of liquor shops and bars in the city of Gauhati in contravention of the excise laws, particularly Rule 183(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. 3. Accordingly, both the issues, namely, the lis involved between the parties in the proceeding of W.P.(C) No.2856/2012 and the broader issue as noticed above were deliberated upon and are sought to be addressed by this common order. The order, therefore, is in two parts, the first part dealing with the issue raised in W.P.(C) No.2856/2012 and the second part dealing with the larger issue taken up suo-motu by the Court. W.P.(C) No.2856/2012 4. As noticed above, in this writ petition, petitioner has challenged legality and validity of order dated 29-03-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) ordering temporary closure of the licensed premise (bar) of the petitioner by exercising power u/s 52(1) of the Assam Excise Act, 1910 (Act). 5. Case of the petitioner is that he fulfilled the necessary conditions for issuance of India Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) "ON" license. Such license was granted to him on 06-11-2004 by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) on sanction being granted by the State Government in the Excise Department. Petitioner operates the said license in his rented premises using it as a bar-cum-restaurant, known as "Mid Town Bar-cum-Restaurant". The rented premises is located on the ground floor of "Basudev Complex", Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati-5. Though the license was initially issued for one year, it has been renewed from time to time. The license was issued after making due enquiry and complying with the requirements of the Act and the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 (Rules). 6. Respondent No.5 is the landlord of the tenanted premises of the petitioner. He wanted to evict the petitioner from the rented premises. 7. At that stage, petitioner instituted a title suit in the Court of Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati against the move to evict him from the tenanted premises. 6. Respondent No.5 is the landlord of the tenanted premises of the petitioner. He wanted to evict the petitioner from the rented premises. 7. At that stage, petitioner instituted a title suit in the Court of Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati against the move to evict him from the tenanted premises. The suit was registered as Title Suit No.382/2011. An injunction petition was also filed, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No.235/2011. The Civil Court passed an order dated 17-11-2011 directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of possession of the suit premises and also in respect of existing connection of water supply, electricity connection and ingress and egress to and from the suit premises. The civil suit is pending for adjudication with the status-quo order dated 17-11-2011 being extended until further order. 8. Thereafter, a number of organisations of the locality started raising a demand against selling of illicit liquor as well as against the petitioner's bar. Representations were made to various authorities including to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) and to the Superintendent of Excise, Kamrup (Metro). Side by side, respondent No.5 also represented before the Excise Minister, Government of Assam requesting him not to renew the license of the petitioner. 9. An enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Excise, Guwahati (Sadar) in view of the complaints lodged. Thereafter, the Circle Officer (A), Guwahati also enquired into the complaints lodged against the petitioner's bar. No anomalies were found regarding the bar. 10. However, in spite of such reports, Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) passed the impugned order dated 29-03-2012. Though hearing was fixed, no hearing took place. Consequently, petitioner's premises (bar) continued to remain closed. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 11. Contention of the petitioner is that all the complaints against his bar were orchestrated by the respondent No.5. Rule 183(2) was amended on 12-05-2005 introducing the 500 meters distance restriction from educational, religious and health institutions and since the petitioner's license was issued on 06-11-2004 before the amendment, closure of the bar cannot be ordered on the basis of the said amended provision. Petitioner's bar has not posed any threat to public peace and tranquility. Thus, there is no justification to order temporary closure of the petitioner's bar. Impugned order is based on wholly extraneous considerations. 12. Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.3) has filed an affidavit. Petitioner's bar has not posed any threat to public peace and tranquility. Thus, there is no justification to order temporary closure of the petitioner's bar. Impugned order is based on wholly extraneous considerations. 12. Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.3) has filed an affidavit. Stand taken is that the impugned order was issued in order to maintain public peace and tranquility as there were several public complaints against the petitioner's bar cum restaurant. The order has been issued as per provision of Section 52 (1) of the Act. There is no illegality or arbitrariness while issuing the impugned order. Though hearing had been fixed, petitioner failed to appear. However, petitioner subsequently appeared and was heard. Matter has been referred to the Government to take necessary action regarding continuation or cancellation of the license and till then it has been decided to continue with the closure order. 13. Respondent No.5 has also filed affidavit. He has supported the complaints made against the bar of the petitioner. He has, however, stated that there is no nexus between his claim to get the tenanted premises vacated and the public complaints made against the bar of the petitioner. He also contends that petitioner's bar is located near a Church in violation of Rule 183(2) of the Rules. The status quo order passed by the Civil Court has nothing to do with the impugned order dated 29-03-2012. It is a mere coincidence that public complaints were made against the petitioner's bar after passing of the status-quo order by the Civil Court. 14. Petitioner has filed separate reply affidavits against the affidavits filed by respondent No.3 and respondent No.5. In the reply affidavit filed against the affidavit of respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner), petitioner has reiterated the statements made in the writ petition and has further stated that in view of the report of the Circle Officer, impugned order dated 29-03-2012 cannot be justified. Respondent No.3 cannot continue with the closure order for an indefinite period. No specific instance of breach of peace and public tranquility has been mentioned. No effort was made to verify about the genuineness or bonafides of the complaints. Respondent No.3 cannot continue with the closure order for an indefinite period. No specific instance of breach of peace and public tranquility has been mentioned. No effort was made to verify about the genuineness or bonafides of the complaints. He has also stated that a copy of an order dated 30-05-2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner with a forwarding letter of the Superintendent of Excise dated 17-07-2012 was left at his residence on 17-07-2012 which says that the Government may be requested to take further necessary action regarding continuation or cancellation of the petitioner's license and till then the order of closure dated 29-03-2012 would continue. This order, petitioner contends, is ante dated so as to circumvent the interim order of this Court dated 27-06-2012 which restrained the respondents from passing any further precipitating order in furtherance to the impugned order dated 29-03-2012. In his reply affidavit to the affidavit of respondent No.5, petitioner has contended that the complaints against the petitioner's bar suddenly surfaced after the status-quo order was passed by the Civil Court. There is a clear nexus between the respondent No.5 and the organisations/individuals complaining against the petitioner's bar. 15. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Chetri, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam for the State respondents and Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 16. Mr. Konwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order directing temporary closure of the petitioner's bar is ex-facie untenable and is liable to be quashed. There is a tenancy dispute between the landlord (respondent No.5) and the tenant (petitioner). Petitioner had moved the Civil Court and had obtained a status-quo order. Immediately after the said order was passed, certain complaints against the petitioner's bar were made alleging public nuisance. According to Mr. Konwar, all these complaints had been made at the instance of the landlord. Without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order was passed which is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice and lacks bona fide. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that his client had incurred huge loss due to closure of his premises. 17. Initially, Mr. Konwar, all these complaints had been made at the instance of the landlord. Without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order was passed which is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice and lacks bona fide. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that his client had incurred huge loss due to closure of his premises. 17. Initially, Mr. B. Chetri, learned Senior Government Advocate had appeared in this case on behalf of the State and submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on receipt of public complaints that the petitioner's bar is located within a radius of 500 meters of a Church. He justified passing of the impugned order. When the scope of the lis was expanded by the Court, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appeared for the State and made his submissions on the larger issue which will be considered in the later part of the judgment. In so far the issue raised in the writ petition is concerned, he fairly submitted that Court may consider and decide the matter on the basis of the available materials. While making his submission on the larger issue, Mr. Choudhury had, however, referred to a Division Bench order of this Court dated 19-08-2010 passed in PIL No.45/2009 (Shri Heramba Singh and others v. State of Assam and others) which held that IMFL "ON" licensed premises are not covered by the distance prohibition or restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2) of the Rules. Mr. Choudhury had also submitted that the above aspect i.e., Rule 183(2) was not the basis of passing the impugned order. 18. Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submitted that though his client had no role in the making of public complaints against the petitioner, the complaints were justified. He, however, submits that the District Magistrate has the power u/s 52(1) of the Act to order temporary closure of a bar, which power he rightly exercised in the present case. 19. Submissions made have been considered. 20. On 14-06-2012, this Court after noting the grievance of the petitioner, had issued notice to the respondents. On the next date, i.e. on 27-06-2012, this Court directed, as an interim measure, that no further precipitating order should be passed in furtherance to impugned order dated 29-03-2012. 19. Submissions made have been considered. 20. On 14-06-2012, this Court after noting the grievance of the petitioner, had issued notice to the respondents. On the next date, i.e. on 27-06-2012, this Court directed, as an interim measure, that no further precipitating order should be passed in furtherance to impugned order dated 29-03-2012. On 18-07-2012, when the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the interim order passed by this Court on 27-06-2012, a copy of Deputy Commissioner's order stated to be dated 30-05-2012 was served on the petitioner on 17-07-2012, which was a back dated order as it did not contain any file No./order No. etc., this Court directed the State Counsel to obtain instruction from the Deputy Commissioner on the order served on the petitioner on 17-07-2012. Such instruction was, however, not placed before the Court. Thereafter, on the basis of order of the Court dated 09-08-2012, which directed closure of liquor outlets which are located in violation of Rule 183(2), and subsequent orders which will be further adverted to in the second part of this judgment, the scope of the writ petition was expanded by the Court. This Court in the order dated 18-09-2012 held that in the light of the Division Bench order in Heramba Singh, which took the view that the distance restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2) does not apply to IMFL "ON" premises, bars may be allowed to re-open. Thus, the closure order passed by the Court was modified in respect of IMFL "ON" premises. Accordingly, by the said order, the petitioner's premise was allowed to re-open subject to the final outcome of the case. 21. We may now refer to Section 52 of the Act under which provision, the impugned order has been passed. Section 52 provides for closing of retail shops for the preservation of public peace. Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (4) are relevant. Under Sub-section (1), the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may by notice in writing to the licensee require that any shop in which any intoxicant is sold by retail shall be closed at such times or for such periods as the Magistrate may deem necessary for the preservation of public peace. Under Sub-section (4), the State Government may grant to the licensee of a shop kept closed under Sub-section (1) such compensation as it may think fit. Under Sub-section (4), the State Government may grant to the licensee of a shop kept closed under Sub-section (1) such compensation as it may think fit. A conjoint and careful reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that the Magistrate must first form an opinion that there is a threat to breach of public peace relatable to the shop selling intoxicant and for preservation of the public peace, he may take a decision to close the shop in which case he shall put the licensee to notice in writing about closure of his shop. The formation of opinion must be on the basis of relevant and cogent material. Only thereafter order of closure u/s 52 can be passed. The closure shall be for such times or for such periods as may be deemed necessary by the Magistrate. In other words, the closure can be for a particular time of the day or for a specified period. Therefore, it cannot be for an indefinite period. Closure of a shop u/s 52 is not a punitive step as the State Government may grant to the licensee compensation for closure of his shop to compensate him for the loss suffered on account of closure of the shop. 22. Having noticed the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, let us now examine the impugned order dated 29-03-2012. The order dated 29-03-2012 reads as under :- " Government Of Assam Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Kamrup Metropolitan District :: Gauhati Dated Gauhati the 29th March/2012 Seen the various public complaints lodged by Brihattar Christianbasti against running of IMFL 'ON' Licenced premises of Sri Arun Pathak, G.S. Road, Christian Basti, Gauhati. The matter was enquired through concerned Inspector of Excise, Gauhati Revenue and Smti. Anuja Bhuyan, E.M., Gauhati (M). Since the matter could not be settled without proper hearing of the licensee, a notice be issued to Sri Arun Pathak, licensee to appear personally before the undersigned on 11-04-2012 at 4 P.M. for personal hearing on the matter. Till the disposal of the matter, the undersigned hereby orders a temporary closure of the licensed premises to maintain public peace and tranquility as per provision laid down under Section 52(1) of AE Act 1910. Inform all concerned accordingly. Deputy Commissioner Kamrup Metropolitan District Gauhati." 23. Till the disposal of the matter, the undersigned hereby orders a temporary closure of the licensed premises to maintain public peace and tranquility as per provision laid down under Section 52(1) of AE Act 1910. Inform all concerned accordingly. Deputy Commissioner Kamrup Metropolitan District Gauhati." 23. A bare reading of the said order would clearly show that it has not been issued as per the requirement of Section 52 (1) of the Act as noticed above. The purpose of an order u/s 52 of the Act as discussed above is totally different. The Deputy Commissioner has referred to two reports, one by the Inspector of Excise and the other by the Circle Officer. In his report dated 27-02-2012, the Inspector of Excise stated that the petitioner's bar was running without any problem till the landlord along with some other people wanted to remove the bar. Landlord himself submitted a petition before the Superintendent of Excise informing that tenancy agreement between the landlord and the petitioner had expired and that he had served notice on the tenant (petitioner) to vacate the rented premises but the tenant refused to vacate the premises. But surprisingly, the Inspector of Excise did not mention about the pendency of the civil suit and the status-quo order passed by the Civil Court, though it is apparent from his report that it is basically a landlord-tenant dispute. In her report dated 16-03-2012, the Circle Officer, who is an Executive Magistrate, however, referred to the tenancy dispute between the parties and the status-quo order passed by the Civil Court. She stated that she had thoroughly enquired into the complaints against the petitioner's bar and had also made physical verification twice but neither could she find any anomaly nor did she witness any untoward scene. 24. Nothing could be placed on record by the Deputy Commissioner that public peace and tranquility has been threatened by the petitioner's bar. Therefore, in the face of such reports, respondent No.3 could not have passed the impugned order dated 29-03-2012. 25. As per Rule 183(2) of the Rules, which will be adverted to more in detail in the second part of the judgment, liquor shops should not be located at sites to which the neighbours object on grounds which upon enquiry appear to be reasonable and free from malice or ulterior motive. 25. As per Rule 183(2) of the Rules, which will be adverted to more in detail in the second part of the judgment, liquor shops should not be located at sites to which the neighbours object on grounds which upon enquiry appear to be reasonable and free from malice or ulterior motive. Affidavit of respondent No.3 does not indicate that any enquiry was made to find out the genuineness and bonafides of the complaints made against the petitioner's premise. The fact that the complaints surfaced after the status-quo order was passed by the Civil Court cannot be explained as a mere coincidence going by the two reports and the stand of the landlord himself. 26. The initial objection of the learned Senior Government Advocate that the petitioner's premise is located within a radius of 500 meters of a Church, thus violating the distance prohibition or restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2) of the Rules, cannot be sustained to justify the impugned order dated 29-03-2012 in as much as the same is not a ground for passing the closure order. It is a settled proposition that an order has to be justified by the reasons / grounds mentioned in the order itself and not by furnishing supplementary reasons / grounds or by filing affidavit. In any case, in the application filed by the State for vacation of the closure order dated 09-08-2012 passed by the Court (Misc. Case No.2376/2012), it has been clarified that the above ground was not the basis for passing the impugned order dated 29-03-2012. 27. Moreover, in the case of Heramba Singh, a Division Bench of this Court had held that IMFL "ON" premises would not be covered by the distance prohibition or restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2) of the Rules. 28. The subsequent order of the Deputy Commissioner is dated 30-05-2012 but was communicated to the petitioner on 17-07-2012. But in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 on 20-07-2012, though he stated about his decision to continue with the closure order, neither a copy of such decision is annexed to the affidavit nor is there any mention about the date of such order. Further, no instruction has been placed before the Court to explain the circumstances in which the said order was issued. This would naturally give rise to doubt about the circumstances in which such order was passed. Further, no instruction has been placed before the Court to explain the circumstances in which the said order was issued. This would naturally give rise to doubt about the circumstances in which such order was passed. In any case, in view of the interim order of this Court dated 27-06-2012 directing that no further precipitating order should be passed in the meantime in furtherance to the impugned order dated 29-03-2012, communication of the said order on 17-07-2012 was wholly uncalled for. However, this aspect of the matter need not detain us any further in view of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs. 29. Therefore, taking all aspects into consideration, the Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 29-03-2012 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. WP(C) No. 3837/2012, MC No. 2376/2012, MC No. 2386/2012, MC No. 2387/2012, MC No. 2401/2012, MC No. 2399/2012, MC No. 2400/2012, MC No. 2402/2012, MC No. 2389/2012, MC No. 2390/2012, MC No. 2391/2012, MC No. 2419/2012, MC No. 2452/2012, MC No. 2453/2012, MC No. 2454/2012, MC No. 2455/2012, MC No. 2520/2012, MC No. 2619/2012, MC No. 2620/2012, MC No. 2519/2012, MC No. 3242/2012, MC No. 3234/2012, MC No. 3233/2012, MC No. 289/2013, MC No. 288/2013, MC No. 286/2013, MC No. 287/2013 30. While hearing W.P.(C) No.2856/2012, submission was made on behalf of the State on 09-08-2012 that no liquor shops or bars can be permitted to function within a radius of 500 meters from hospitals, religious places and educational institutions. Since the petitioner's premise is located within a radius of 500 meters of a Church, public complaints were made and, therefore, the impugned order was passed. After noting the said submission, the Court took the view that if that be the stand of the State, it should be applied uniformly and not selectively. Accordingly, the district administration of Kamrup (Metro) district was directed to close down all the bars and wine shops in the city of Guwahati which are situated within a radius of 500 meters of such places as well as the High Court, other Courts and Tribunals. 31. On the next day i.e. on 10-08-2012, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Additional Advocate General submitted before the Court that the Government would like to revisit the relevant provisions of the Rules, particularly in the context of Guwahati city. 31. On the next day i.e. on 10-08-2012, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Additional Advocate General submitted before the Court that the Government would like to revisit the relevant provisions of the Rules, particularly in the context of Guwahati city. State was directed to file affidavit indicating therein the list of liquor shops and bars which are situated within a radius of 500 meters of the above places along with the names of the officials responsible for grant of such licenses. Closure order passed on 09-08-2012 was reiterated. 32. A number of affected and interested parties, including All Assam IMFL Retailers Association, had filed applications for impleadment as well as for vacation of the orders dated 09-08-2012 and 10-08-2012. The State had also filed application for vacation/modification of such order (Misc. Case No.2376/2012). As the Court had made a departure from the lis involved in W.P.(C) No.2856/2012 and expanded the scope of the writ petition in the public interest, this Court by order dated 17-08-2012 observed that all the affected and interested parties would be heard. As such parties were large in number and considering the nature of the proceeding, no separate orders were considered necessary to be passed in the individual misc. applications. However, all the applications were taken up for consideration. 33. In the course of the deliberations on 17-08-2012, a broad consensus emerged that a High Power Committee should be constituted to examine the issue of rampant and mushroom opening of liquor shops and bars in Guwahati city, particularly in the context of Rule 183(2) of the Rules. 34. Government issued a notification dated 18-08-2012 notifying constitution of a High Power Committee comprising of eight members to examine the above issue. The committee was headed by Shri P.P. Verma, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam as the Chairman and comprised of the following members:-. (1) Shri P.P. Verma, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam. Chairman (2) Smti. Lily Rajbongshi, Chairperson, State Anti Drug and Prohibition Council. Member (3) Chairperson, Assam State Commission for Women or her nominee. Member (4) Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department. Member (5) Legal Remembrancer, Government of Assam. Member (6) Shri A.K. Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate, Gauhati High Court. Member (7) Shri K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Additional Advocate General, Assam. Member (8) Commissioner of Excise, Assam. Member (3) Chairperson, Assam State Commission for Women or her nominee. Member (4) Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department. Member (5) Legal Remembrancer, Government of Assam. Member (6) Shri A.K. Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate, Gauhati High Court. Member (7) Shri K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Additional Advocate General, Assam. Member (8) Commissioner of Excise, Assam. Member Secretary The terms of reference of the High Power Committee were as follows :- "(a) To examine whether the liquor shops and bars in the city of Guwahati are in excess of a rationalised need and requirement as per existing Act and Rules of the Excise Department. (b) To review and to take a closer look at Rule 183(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, particularly in the context of Guwahati City, and suggest modifications if considered necessary. (c) To examine whether the Rules concerning the Religious and Educational Institutions should be further qualified to include only legally recognised and duly authorised educational and religious institutions which have a bona fide presence. The Committee will also take a look at what should be done in areas where an existing licenced liquor shop or bar came into operation preceding the opening of an educational or religious institution in the same area. (d) To examine whether the across the Board closure of the existing bars and liquor shops on a rigid interpretation of the distance factor is likely to affect the livelihood and employment opportunities of a large section of people already engaged in the sector and its impact on Government revenues. (e) To examine whether closure of the existing liquor shops and bars in Guwahati City will unintentionally lead to illicit trade in alcoholic beverages." 35. The applications for recall of the Court's order dated 09-08-2012 and 10-08-2012 were heard on 21-08-2012 and order was passed on 24-08-2012. A number of learned Counsel made their respective submissions either supporting the closure order(s) and continuation of the same or for modification of the closure order(s). Further reference to the submissions made is considered not necessary as those have already been noted in detail in the order dated 24-08-2012. 36. After hearing exhaustive arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, Court passed a detailed order on 24-08-2012. Further reference to the submissions made is considered not necessary as those have already been noted in detail in the order dated 24-08-2012. 36. After hearing exhaustive arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, Court passed a detailed order on 24-08-2012. It was observed that the issue which has engaged the attention of the Court is the failure of the State, more particularly of the Excise Department and its officials, in applying the provisions of the Act and the Rules properly leading to mushroom and indiscriminate opening of liquor shops and bars in the city. It was further observed that the fact that almost all the liquor shops and bars had to be closed down following the order of this Court reflects the deep rooted malady. It may be mentioned that till that stage of hearing, Deputy Commissioner had submitted a report in respect of 125 numbers of IMFL "ON" and "OFF" licensed premises and most of them were found to be in close proximity of educational institutions or health institutions or religious places. Deputy Commissioner was directed to place the full list of such wine shops and bars along with the list of officials who were responsible for issuance of such licenses. 37. A Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rubul Kanti Roy and ors. v. State of Assam and ors. reported in 2000 (2) GLT 460 : 2000(2) GLJ 539 was also placed before the Court. The present issue was also examined in Rubul Kanti Roy where after the State authorities were directed to act strictly in accordance with the Act and the Rules without disturbing any existing licensees. Rubul Kanti Roy was decided on 13-03-2000. While deciding to continue with the present proceeding, the Court observed that it would consider the suggestions and recommendations of the High Power Committee. This Court also examined the provisions of Rule 183(2), both in its pre-amended form as well as after the amendment. After considering the matter, the Court passed the following order on 24-08-2012 :- "35. In view of the above discussion, the conclusions of today's order may be summarised as under :- 1. This Court also examined the provisions of Rule 183(2), both in its pre-amended form as well as after the amendment. After considering the matter, the Court passed the following order on 24-08-2012 :- "35. In view of the above discussion, the conclusions of today's order may be summarised as under :- 1. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department to inform the Court by the next date by filing response as to what steps the Government proposes to take against the excise officials prima facie responsible for violation of the excise laws while granting liquor licenses in Guwahati City. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District should complete the exercise as directed by the orders dated 10-08-2012 and 17-08-2012 and submit the complete list as indicated in paragraph 6 and 7 above before the Court by the next date. 3. The Court would continue with the present proceeding and monitor the functioning of the High Power Committee. The Committee would submit its report(s) to the Court for consideration. 4. Considering the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rubul Kanti Roy, IMFL "OFF" and "ON" licensees existing as on 13-03-2000 would be entitled to reopen their premises. Therefore, the orders dated 09-08-2012 and 10-08-2012 would stand modified in respect of these category of licensees. 5. On the question as to whether the closure orders in respect of the IMFL "OFF" and "ON" licensees after 13-03-2000 should continue or not, the Court would first like to have the views of the High Power Committee. Such views may be submitted in the form of a preliminary report by the next date. On consideration of such report, the Court may consider passing further order(s). 6. Case of the petitioner would be taken up on the next date." 38. Preliminary report of the High Power Committee was placed before the Court on 10-09-2012. Mr. N. Choudhury, a learned counsel was appointed as amicus curiae (he has since been elevated to the Bench). The matter was heard on 14-09-2012 on the prayer for modification of the closure orders in respect of IMFL "OFF" and "ON" licenses granted after 13-03-2000. Mr. Preliminary report of the High Power Committee was placed before the Court on 10-09-2012. Mr. N. Choudhury, a learned counsel was appointed as amicus curiae (he has since been elevated to the Bench). The matter was heard on 14-09-2012 on the prayer for modification of the closure orders in respect of IMFL "OFF" and "ON" licenses granted after 13-03-2000. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Additional Advocate General submitted before the Court that the High Power Committee had examined the matter and in its preliminary report dated 10-09-2012 suggested that IMFL "ON" and "OFF" licenses in the city granted before 18-03-2005 may be allowed to reopen as the distance requirement of 500 meters from educational/health/religious institutions etc. was introduced in the Rules by an amendment of Rule 183(2) w.e.f. 18-03-2005. He also submitted that the High Power Committee in the light of the Division Bench order of this Court in Heramba Singh took the view that premises having IMFL "ON" licenses may be allowed to reopen. 39. The Deputy Commissioner submitted a list of 431 IMFL "OFF" and "ON" licensed premises in Guwahati city which are located within a radius of 500 meters from hospitals, religious and educational institutions etc. In Misc. Case No.2376/2012 filed by the State, it is stated that there are 441 IMFL "OFF" and "ON" licenses in Guwahati city. Out of the aforesaid 441 licenses, 431 have been found to be in violation of the 500 meters distance restriction. Thus only 10 IMFL licenses were found to be in conformity with Rule 183 (2) of the Rules. 40. The High Power Committee made three suggestions in the preliminary report, which were as under :- (1) Since the distance restriction of 500 meters was brought in by an amendment effective from 18-03-2005, IMFL "OFF" and "ON" licenses granted prior to that date may be allowed to re-open; (2) In the light of the Division Bench order of this Court in Heramba Singh which observed that distance restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2) does not apply to IMFL "ON" premises, those may be allowed to re-open; (3) Those IMFL "OFF" licenses granted after 18-03-2005 in whose vicinity health/educational/religious institutions came into existence subsequent to the date of their license, may be allowed to re-open. 41. Additionally, the High Power Committee suggested certain administrative steps. 41. Additionally, the High Power Committee suggested certain administrative steps. The Court also found that one member of the High Power Committee Shri A.K. Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate had submitted a dissenting note and expressed the opinion that the closure order dated 09-08-2012, modified on 24-08-2012, should not be further modified at that stage. Court was further informed that the State Government had ordered an administrative enquiry on 30-08-2012 to enquire into the culpability, if any, on the part of the excise officials while granting liquor licenses in Guwahati city in violation of the Rules. Shri Shantanu Thakur, IAS, Commissioner of Excise was made the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. 42. The Court considered the issue as to whether the IMFL "OFF" and "ON" licenses granted after 13-03-2000 should be allowed to re-open or not during the pendency of the present proceeding, which was debated at considerable length. It was observed as follows:- "22. The present proceeding in the expanded form is at the instance of the Court. The Court had passed the closure orders on 09-08-2012 and 10-08-2012 in respect of those liquor licenses which were granted in violation of the 500 meters distance restriction as provided in Rule 183(2). When those orders were passed, the notification dated 18-03-2005 introducing the 500 meters restriction as well as the Division Bench order of this Court in Heramba Singh (Supra) were not before the Court. It is contended that the 500 meters restriction was brought in by the aforesaid notification effective from 18-03-2005. It is however a debatable point as to whether the above restriction would be effective from 18-03-2005 or apply retrospectively as it has also been contended that such restriction was always the intention of the rule making authority. However, as indicated above, this issue is a debatable one which may require detail examination at the time of final hearing. But till such hearing takes place, the out come of which is not known, in my view, those who had obtained IMFL licenses prior to 18-3-2005 should get the benefit of doubt as when they had obtained their licenses such requirement was not in existence. Coming to Heramba Singh (supra) a Division Bench of this Court had observed that IMFL "ON" license is not covered by the prohibition or restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2) of the Rules. Coming to Heramba Singh (supra) a Division Bench of this Court had observed that IMFL "ON" license is not covered by the prohibition or restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2) of the Rules. This Court in the order dated 24-08-2012 had observed that the above decision would also be taken into consideration while passing further orders. Therefore, in my considered view, in view of the decision in Heramba Singh (supra), the closure orders would require modification in respect of IMFL "ON" premises and those may be allowed to reopen. 23. The entire issue is now being deliberated upon by the High Power Committee which comprises amongst others the Chairman of the State Prohibition Council and the Chairman of the State Women Commission. The Court will examine the full and final report of the High Power Committee at the time of final hearing and try to take the matter to a logical end. Since the closure orders were not passed by the State but by the Court while suo-motu expanding the scope of the writ petition, the Court has to strike a balance between the high constitutional philosophy and the immediate ground reality. Though the closure orders are only of temporarily measure till the final hearing, the outcome of which cannot be visualised at this stage, the Court is also not unmindful of the fact that livelihood of a large number of people is dependent on this trade, which according to the Government application, would be about fifty thousand. In view of above, the orders dated 09-08-2012 and 10-08-2012 should now be modified to cover IMFL "OFF" licenses granted prior to 18-03-2005 and those premises having IMFL "ON" licenses. However, the closure orders would continue in respect of those IMFL "OFF" licenses granted after 18-03-2005 which are in violation of the distance restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2)." 43. Thereafter, the Court passed the following orders on 18-09-2012 :- "25. However, the closure orders would continue in respect of those IMFL "OFF" licenses granted after 18-03-2005 which are in violation of the distance restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2)." 43. Thereafter, the Court passed the following orders on 18-09-2012 :- "25. Accordingly, the Court considers it appropriate to pass the following orders :- (1) writ petition be listed for final disposal on 26-11-2012; (2) the report of the administrative enquiry constituted as per order of enquiry dated 30-08-2012 should be placed before the Court along with an affidavit before the aforesaid date of hearing with advance copies to the respective Counsel; (3) the High Power Committee shall also submit its full and final report in terms of the notification dated 18-08-2012 to the Court along with an affidavit of the Member Secretary before the date of hearing with advance copies to the respective Counsel; (4) Considering the notification dated 18-03-2005, introducing the distance restriction of 500 meters from the buildings, places and institutions mentioned in Rule 183 (2), IMFL "OFF" licenses granted prior to 18-03-2005 would be entitled to reopen their premises. Therefore, the closure orders dated 09-08-2012 and 10-08-2012 would stand modified accordingly; (5) In view of the Division Bench order of this Court in the case of Heramba Singh, premises having IMFL "ON" licenses would also be entitled to reopen their premises and the closure orders passed earlier would accordingly stand modified; (6) Till final orders are passed in the writ petition, the petitioner's IMFL "ON" licensed premises shall also be allowed to reopen." 44. On 26-11-2012, the High Power Committee submitted its final report. However, the Enquiry Officer of the administrative enquiry sought for time till 31-01-2013 for submission of enquiry report. Accordingly, the hearing was deferred. Subsequently, the report of the administrative enquiry was submitted on 30-01-2013 and the case was heard. 45. The two reports may now be referred to. Final report of High Power Committee : 46. As already noticed above, the State Government in the Excise Department had issued a notification dated 18-08-2012 constituting a High Power Committee to examine the issue of indiscriminate opening of a large number of liquor shops and bars in Guwahati city. Constitution and terms of reference of the Committee have been already referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this order. 47. Constitution and terms of reference of the Committee have been already referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this order. 47. As already noticed, the High Power Committee had submitted its preliminary report which had been taken note of by the Court in its order dated 18-09-2012. However, the Committee in its final report suggested that the preliminary report should also be considered as part of the final report. The Committee indicated in its final report that relevant Excise Acts and Rules of other States, such as, Delhi, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Rajasthan etc. were consulted. Statistical data on alcohol consumption in Guwahati city and rest of the State were collected and examined. The Committee observed that after the year 2001, no new "OFF" licenses in Guwahati city have been granted except for a few cases where shifting, relocation etc. had been permitted. The Committee examined Rules 180 and 183(2) of the Rules and observed that the consumers in the city could have rationally managed even with a lesser number of liquor outlets. Statistics available with the Excise Department show that consumption of IMFL in Guwahati city over the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 had increased by over to 250%. Projected increase in consumption level for the next five years is around 100%. The distance restriction of 500 meters on the location of liquor shops from hospitals/religious/educational institutions was brought in March, 2005 with an explanation "so far as possible". The Committee opined that the Government in the Excise Department needs to re-visit the Rules, particularly Rule 183(2), to bring in clarity. Religious, health and educational institutions should also be qualified to include legally recognised and duly authorised institutions which have a bona fide presence. The Committee also suggested amendment of Rule 191 which provides for ascertainment of public opinion regarding number and location of excise shops to provide for a complaint redressal mechanism. The Committee has expressed the view that since the city of Gauhati has not grown and developed along planned patterns of urban development, every ward of the city has virtually become a mixture of residential as well as commercial area. Considering that there is sufficient number of liquor shops in the city, Government may put a cap on new licenses for the next five years before making a rational assessment. Considering that there is sufficient number of liquor shops in the city, Government may put a cap on new licenses for the next five years before making a rational assessment. Based on the above deliberation, the High Power Committee made the following recommendations:- " On careful consideration of the relevant aspects that have come up and the issue in general, the High Power Committee unanimously makes the following recommendations: 1. The Government may go for a minimum of Five(5) year moratorium on grant of new "OFF" counters in Guwahati City. 2. In the case of new "ON" licenses also, the same moratorium may be applied with exceptions to recognised / categorized/classified hotels conforming to proper ambience, seating capacity, security provisions etc. and on whose premises the Deputy Commissioner of the district ascertains, after a proper enquiry, the existence of a proven clientele of consumers after the commissioning of the Hotel. The Excise Department in consultation with the Tourism/GMDA/GMC etc. should prepare guidelines specifying security measures, seating capacity, ambience, lighting, opening and closure timings etc. of the premises which must be implemented by the licensee within sixty (60) days time of notice failing which the licence would be suspended till compliance of these guidelines. The existing licensees may also be given an option to relocate their premises to conform to the new guidelines or face closure. 3. The opening and closure timings of "OFF" counters should be made from 3 PM to 9 PM in Gauhati city and rest of the State. These counters may also be asked to display the MRP of their brands on sale. 4. In case of "ON" counters the timing should be from 1 PM to 10 PM all over the State. 5. Government may go for revision of relevant Rules such as Rule 183(2), R.191 and other Rules of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 as may be necessary for rationalisation of the same after a comparative study of the Rules prevailing in other States. The complaint redressal mechanism regarding location of new shops should be made effective and transparent. The existing provisions in Rule 191 provides for consideration of complaints only from local bodies. This should be suitably amended to allow considerations of complaints from individuals, neighbours and other stakeholders. The complaint redressal mechanism regarding location of new shops should be made effective and transparent. The existing provisions in Rule 191 provides for consideration of complaints only from local bodies. This should be suitably amended to allow considerations of complaints from individuals, neighbours and other stakeholders. A Committee at the district level with the Deputy Commissioner as the Chairperson and other members from Civil society, Police, Excise and Local Bodies should examine and pass orders on the bona fide Complaints. Affected parties may go on appeal against order of this Committee to an Appellate Committee headed by the Commissioner of Excise, Assam with representatives from Civil Society / Municipal Bodies / Police etc. As already provided in Rule 339 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 an appeal against the order of the Excise Commissioner, a District Collector, a Collector other than a District Collector shall lie to the Assam Board of Revenue. The same Committee described here will also evaluate applications for new licences twice every year. 6. Renewal of licences should be made objective with considerations of location restrictions and bona fides of complaints as already provided for in Rule 184 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. 7. Government may consider declaration of at least two DRY DAYS in a month in addition to which DRY DAY may also be declared on select days of religious festivals like Holi, Eid, Viswakarma Puja, Vijaya Dashami (immersion) day of Durga Puja and Christmas etc. as there are precedents of untoward incidents on such days because of liquor consumption. 8. All "OFF" counters that are violative of the 500 meter distance restriction and granted after 18-03-2005 should either be closed or be asked to relocate. 9. Drunken driving is a primary cause of fatalities on the road. Drastic steps need to be taken to ensure that a person keeps himself away from the driving seat in an inebriated condition. The most effective measures could be: (i) Stronger laws with vigorous enforcement. (ii) Regular awareness drives on the perils of drunken driving. As put into practise in some cities of the country, Government may introduce a regulation which prohibits a person to drive after he or she consumes liquor. There should also be strict vigil to stop any kind of alcohol consumption inside a vehicle, whether parked or on the move and in public places. As put into practise in some cities of the country, Government may introduce a regulation which prohibits a person to drive after he or she consumes liquor. There should also be strict vigil to stop any kind of alcohol consumption inside a vehicle, whether parked or on the move and in public places. To begin with, a task force of Excise officials and the Police for the Gauhati city should be formed to enforce this immediately. Government may consider appointment of Special Excise Officers in the line of Special Police Officers (SPO) for this special task." 48. It is seen that two members of the High Power Committee viz., Smt. Lily Rajbongshi, Chairperson, State Anti Drugs and Prohibition Council and Shri A.K. Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate did not sign the final report. Report of Administrative Enquiry : 49. The administrative enquiry was ordered by the Government on 30-08-2012 to examine the role of excise officials prima-facie responsible for violation of the excise laws while granting liquor licenses in Gauhati city. Shri Shantanu Thakur, IAS, Commissioner of Excise, Assam was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. When he was transferred as Commissioner and Secretary, Agriculture Department, he was asked to continue as the Enquiry Officer. As already noticed, he submitted the report on 30-01-2013. The enquiry report dated 30-01-2013 indicated that the enquiry was conducted into the role of excise officials in the cases of licenses granted after 18-03-2005 i.e. the date when Rule 183(2) was amended introducing the 500 meters distance restriction. The enquiry looked into three establishments involved in the decision making process viz., office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), office of the Commissioner of Excise, Assam and the Excise Department at the Assam Secretariat. After examining various aspects of the matter, the Enquiry Officer mentioned that the Government in the Excise Department had taken a decision dated 29-11-2001 (copy enclosed with the report) not to issue any more IMFL "OFF" licenses. Sanctions accorded after the said date for grant of licenses were cancelled. Reference was made to the final report of the High Power Committee which noted that after 2001 no new "OFF" licenses in Gauhati city have been granted except for a few cases where shifting, relocation etc. have been permitted. Sanctions accorded after the said date for grant of licenses were cancelled. Reference was made to the final report of the High Power Committee which noted that after 2001 no new "OFF" licenses in Gauhati city have been granted except for a few cases where shifting, relocation etc. have been permitted. The Enquiry Officer found from the record that 13 (thirteen) "OFF" counters in Gauhati city were allowed to be set up by converting some existing "ON" licenses to "OFF" licenses. The Rules have no provision for such conversion. Logically, for obtaining "OFF" licenses, the applicants ought to have surrendered their "ON" licenses and applied afresh for "OFF" licenses. However, in view of the Government decision dated 29-11-2001, such conversion should have been kept in abeyance. The report indicates that in processing these 13 (thirteen) cases of conversion, the lower level officials had by and large discharged their duty by pointing out the relevant aspects including the distance restriction. However, the respective Deputy Commissioners of the district and the Commissioners of Excise did not monitor the proposals as the proposals were simply forwarded to the Government. In all these 13 (thirteen) conversion cases, approval and sanction of the Government were received at the level of the Excise Minister on the notes of the departmental Secretary and the departmental Commissioner and Secretary. None of these files were routed through the Principal Secretary of the department. The relevant portion of the findings of the Enquiry Officer are as follows:- "Findings: Any attempt at fixing responsibility on the Excise Officials has to take note of the prevailing procedure through which "ON" and "OFF" licences are sanctioned. Under the relevant Rules (Rule 272 to 284 etc. of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945) all licences including "ON" and "OFF" licences are granted by the District Collector / Deputy Commissioner with previous sanction of the Government. The Deputy Commissioner and the Government in the Excise Department are, therefore, the key functionaries in the process. The Superintendent of Excise and his team of officials at the District level assist the Deputy Commissioner in obtaining field report etc. which are important to the Deputy Commissioner in forming his opinion. It appears from Government letter No. EX.429/ 2001/pt/4 dated Dispur the 29-11-2001, Govt. in the Excise Deptt. The Superintendent of Excise and his team of officials at the District level assist the Deputy Commissioner in obtaining field report etc. which are important to the Deputy Commissioner in forming his opinion. It appears from Government letter No. EX.429/ 2001/pt/4 dated Dispur the 29-11-2001, Govt. in the Excise Deptt. had reviewed the matter of issue of new licences for IMFL retail counters (OFF) and had decided "not to issue any more licence at present". As a result, the sanctions accorded for granting licences both in respect of which fees etc. were deposited but licences not issued as well as where no fees etc. had been deposited were also cancelled as mentioned in the same letter under reference. Para-3 of the Final Report of the High Power Committee (HPC) notified by the Government of Assam vide No. EX.252/2012/32 dated 18-08-2012 has noted that after 2001 no new "OFF" licences in the City of Gauhati have been granted except for few cases where shifting, relocation etc. have been permitted. However, from the records available, it is seen that as many as thirteen (13) "OFF" counters in Gauhati city were allowed to be set up by 'converting' some existing "ON" licences to "OFF" licences and that is where the rub lies. (At Sl.11 of Annexure 1). The Assam Excise Rules, 1945 have no provisions for conversion of an "ON" licence to an "OFF" licence. Although the Rules have no provisions for conversions, a common sense interpretation would be that if the holder of an "ON" licence, for reasons of business viability, desires to change over to an "OFF" licence, he/she, in normal course, should be asked to surrender the "ON" licence and apply afresh for an "OFF" licence which should then go through the procedure laid for grant of new "OFF" licences. In view of the decision taken by the Government not to go for any new retail "OFF" licences, all these thirteen (13) licences "converted" from "ON" to "OFF" should have been kept in abeyance till the Government reviewed its decision as communicated by its own letter No. EX.429/2001/pt/4 dated Dispur the 29-11-2001. In the procession of these thirteen (13) cases, almost all the Inspector level officials had pointed out, in proper format, the relevant aspects including the distance restrictions. In the procession of these thirteen (13) cases, almost all the Inspector level officials had pointed out, in proper format, the relevant aspects including the distance restrictions. At the level of the Secretariat also all aspects were pointed out either at the level of the dealing Assistants or at the level of Under Secretary / Deputy Secretary / Joint Secretary etc. However, the respective Deputy Commissioners of Kamrup (Metro) had simply forwarded these licence cases to the Government through the Commissioner of Excise, Assam without any specific views on whether the cases deserved to be granted licence or not. The office of the Commissioner of Excise, Assam does not either sanction or grant licences. However, as the proposals from the Deputy Commissioner are routed through the Commissioner of Excise, Assam to the Government, it is expected that the Commissioner of Excise, Assam should give his views on the proposals which, however, was not done in any of these thirteen (13) cases. All these thirteen (13) 'conversion' cases from "ON" to "OFF" licences received approval and sanction of the Government at the level of the then Hon'ble Minister, Excise on the notes of the then Secretary and Commissioner & Secretary, Excise Department. Incidentally, none of these files were routed through the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department. All such approvals of these thirteen (13) cases were approved in the concerned individual files and no record was placed before this enquiry to show that the Government had taken some interim decision to relax the decision taken vide its earlier letter No. EX.429/2001/pt/4 dated Dispur the 29-11-2001. The position vis-a-vis existing rules were pointed out at some point or the other while processing the cases. The field level officers, therefore, had more-or-less done their bit in pointing out factors of distances etc. Moreover, the Government in sanctioning licences looks at Rule 183(2) not in isolation but collectively in context of the other prevailing rules on the matter (kindly refer para-3 of the Final Report of the High Power Committee (HPC) enclosed at Sl. 8 of Annexure-1)." 50. Before examining the two reports, a brief dilation on the relevant legal provisions is considered necessary. 51. Article 47 of the Constitution of India provides that it shall be the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and to improve public health. 8 of Annexure-1)." 50. Before examining the two reports, a brief dilation on the relevant legal provisions is considered necessary. 51. Article 47 of the Constitution of India provides that it shall be the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and to improve public health. Article 47, which is part of the directive principles of State policy, enjoins the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health except for medicinal purposes. 52. Article 47 of the Constitution has been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dikshit and others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 90 .Discussing regulation of liquor trade vis-a-vis public health, the Apex Court held that keeping in mind the mandate of Article 47 and furthering the cause of public health, provisions of the statutes regulating the trade in liquor are required to be strictly construed. 53. There is a long line of judicial pronouncements laying down the principle that there is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants. Trade in liquor has been categorized as res extra commercium. The State under its regulatory powers has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants. 54. However, whether there should be prohibition or not is in the realm of policy making and the Court would not like to enter into such an arena. Prohibition is a matter of policy in respect of which the State alone would be competent to make laws. As long as no law exists imposing prohibition on the use of liquor and the matter is regulated by statutory provisions, such matters are to be regulated in accordance with the statutory provisions. But as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Lanka (supra), such provisions should be strictly construed keeping in view the mandate of Article 47 vis-a-vis public health. 55. State of Assam as a matter of policy has decided not to impose prohibition. It has decided to regulate the trade under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 56. Section 28 of the Act provides for ascertainment of local public opinion before grant of retail license. The public opinion is to be ascertained with regard to licensing and location of shops. It has decided to regulate the trade under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 56. Section 28 of the Act provides for ascertainment of local public opinion before grant of retail license. The public opinion is to be ascertained with regard to licensing and location of shops. Section 36 is the Rule making provision. 57. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36 of the Act, the Rules have been framed. Provisions of the Rules relevant for the present case may now be looked into. Part VI of the Rules deals with licenses and settlement of fees. As per Rule 178, a license for wholesale or retail sale of intoxicants may be granted for a term of three consecutive years or for any shorter period commencing from the first day of April. Rule 179 provides that the number of licenses which may be granted for any local area shall be regulated by the needs of the people of that area and no license shall be granted unless it is required either to meet an ascertained demand or to counter-act supply of any intoxicant through illicit sources. As per Rule 180, liquor should not be so sparsely distributed as to give to any particular lessee practical monopoly over a considerable area. 58. That brings us to Rule 183, more particularly Rule 183(2), which is the centre of the discourse. It deals with location of shops. Sub-Rules (3) and (4) deal with location of country spirit shops and are not relevant. As already noticed, this Rule was amended w.e.f. 18-03-2005. Before amendment, the said Rule was as follows :- "183.(1) In urban areas, the position of shops licensed for the consumption of liquor on the premises should be so fixed that persons entering them should not escape observation, and that supervision should be rendered easy but they should be so prominent as to compel attention. (2) The shops should not be located at sites to which the neighbours object on ground which upon enquiry appear to be reasonable and free from malice or ulterior motive and should, so far as possible be at a reasonable distance from religious, education and other similar buildings or institutions. (2) The shops should not be located at sites to which the neighbours object on ground which upon enquiry appear to be reasonable and free from malice or ulterior motive and should, so far as possible be at a reasonable distance from religious, education and other similar buildings or institutions. Explanation:- The word "reasonable" should be interpreted according to the circumstances of the case." After the amendment, the said Rule now reads as under :- "183(1) In Urban areas, the position of shops licensed for the consumption of liquor on the premises should be so fixed that persons entering them should not escape observation, and that supervision should be rendered easy, but they should not be so prominent as to compel attention. (2) The shop should not be located at sites to which the neighbours object on grounds which upon enquiry appears to be reasonable and free from malice or ulterior motive and should so far as possible, be at a distance not less than 500 meters from hospitals, dispensaries and Nursing Homes, religious, educational or other similar buildings or institutions. Explanation - The word "reasonable" should be interpreted according to the circumstances of the cases." 59. Thus from a careful reading of the aforesaid provision, both pre-amended and post amended, the intention of the Rule making authority becomes clear. Liquor shops should be at a reasonable distance from hospitals, educational institutions and religious places, which has been specified as not less than 500 meters in the amendment brought in w.e.f. 18-03-2005. However, room for some elbow space is provided by qualifying the distance restriction with the words "so far as possible". As per the explanation, the word "reasonable" should be interpreted according to the circumstances of the case. Both Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel who had appeared for All Assam IMFL Retailers Association and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam had strenuously argued that the distance restriction mentioned in the Rules cannot be applied with mathematical precision and has to be understood in a reasonable manner by adopting a common sense approach, keeping in mind the haphazard, disorganized and unplanned growth of Guwahati city. Learned Counsel had argued that Rule 183(2) has to be read in conjunction with Rules 189 and 191 to which we will advert to in the succeeding paragraphs. Learned Counsel had argued that Rule 183(2) has to be read in conjunction with Rules 189 and 191 to which we will advert to in the succeeding paragraphs. The aforesaid view appears to have been endorsed by the High Power Committee going by its reports. 60. Rule 184 provides that location of existing shops should be examined at least once in three years with a view to ascertain whether those conform to the Rules in respect of sites. Thus, this Rule mandates the sanctioning as well as licensing authority to go for a periodical examination once in three years of the location of existing liquors shops to ensure that those are in conformity with the Rules. 61. As per Rule 189, IMFL licenses, both "ON" and "OFF" shall be granted only in places where there is a proven demand on the part of a class of drinkers accustomed to foreign liquor, e.g., in large industrial and business centers or in urban areas where there is a class of consumers specially accustomed to drinking such liquor. 62. Rule 191 deals with ascertainment of public opinion regarding the number and location of excise shops and the procedure to be followed while processing such public opinion. This Rule particularly provides for opening, shifting, amalgamation and closure of any licensed premises which shall be done by the District Collector with the previous sanction of the State Government. Such course of action shall not be resorted to without it being satisfactorily established by local enquiry that the proposed action is necessary in the interest of public and the objections that may have been filed, have been considered by the District Collector. 63. In Pradip Kumar Dutta v. State of Assam (1992) 2 GLR 138 : (1991) 2 GKJ 384, this Court held that State has the exclusive right or privilege in carrying out the liquor trade, be it manufacture or sale of liquor. Such right or privilege can be granted or parted in the shape of a license or a lease. There is no fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor. But when the State decides to grant license or part with such privilege, it cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. 64. In Rubul Kanti Roy, this Court examined the issue of indiscriminate grant of liquor licenses in the State of Assam. There is no fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor. But when the State decides to grant license or part with such privilege, it cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. 64. In Rubul Kanti Roy, this Court examined the issue of indiscriminate grant of liquor licenses in the State of Assam. After an elaborate examination of the legal provisions governing the liquor trade, this Court directed the authorities to act strictly in accordance with the Act and the Rules while issuing new license, without disturbing any existing licensee. This is a Division Bench judgment and it was decided on 13-03-2000. This case has assumed importance in as much as it has fixed a cut off date while directing the State to strictly follow the provisions of the Act and the Rules while issuing new licenses. The cut off date is the date of judgment as the Court had made it clear that the existing licenses should not be disturbed. 65. In Prasanta Barpatra v. State of Assam and others reported in 2002 (2) GLT 292 : (2002) 2 GLJ 409 this Court held that the authority while issuing licenses should act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and in case of objection against any existing licensee, the District Collector should consider such objection in accordance with law. Reference was made to the judgment in Rubul Kanti Roy. The Court also approved the Government decision dated 29-11-2001 not to issue further licenses to be in the larger interest of the society. 66. In Ashok Lanka, Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against en-masse cancellation of liquor licenses in the absence of such licensees as they are necessary parties. The order of the High Court directing cancellation of licenses of all the private respondents of the writ petition without arriving at a finding as to how and in what manner license granted to each one of them was either in violation of the provisions of the statute or the directions of the Court was held to be unsustainable. 67. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 111 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the expression "close proximity" appearing in the Uttar Pradesh Excise Rules. 67. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 111 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the expression "close proximity" appearing in the Uttar Pradesh Excise Rules. In the facts of that case, the Apex Court agreed with the view taken by the High Court that a distance within 100 meters or 300 ft. (approx) from a school, hospital, place of worship etc. would be the right criteria where liquor licence should not be granted. However, the approach of the High Court in closing the liquor shops coming within the aforesaid distance restriction without issuing notice to the affected parties was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All the licensees whose premises were located within the aforesaid distance from schools, hospitals, places of worship etc. were given time to shift/re-locate their premises. 68. In Heramba Singh, challenge was made to the allotment of IMFL "ON" licence in enable the licensee to run a beer bar in an existing restaurant on the ground that it was in contravention of Rule 183(2) of the Rules. A Division Bench of this Court negatived the challenge by holding that IMFL "ON" licence would not be covered by the prohibition or restriction mentioned in Rule 183(2). 69. Having broadly noticed the legal provisions, let us once again revert back to the two reports. A copy of Government letter dated 29-11-2001 has been placed on record by the Enquiry Officer along with his enquiry report. The said letter addressed to the Commissioner of Excise, Assam stated that opening of a huge number of IMFL retail shops had been engaging the attention of the State Government for sometime. The letter further discloses that keeping in view the deleterious effect that prevalence of a large number of foreign liquor shops may have in the society and also to do away with unhealthy competition amongst the licensees, the State Government had reviewed the matter of issue of granting further licenses for IMFL retail shops. Accordingly, the Government in the Excise Department decided not to issue any more licenses. Consequently, the sanctions accorded for granting licenses but where licenses had not yet been issued were cancelled including in those cases where fees had also been deposited. 70. Another Government letter dated 06-10-2003 has also been placed on record by the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the Government in the Excise Department decided not to issue any more licenses. Consequently, the sanctions accorded for granting licenses but where licenses had not yet been issued were cancelled including in those cases where fees had also been deposited. 70. Another Government letter dated 06-10-2003 has also been placed on record by the Enquiry Officer. By the said letter, the Commissioner of Excise was informed that the Government had no objection to process applications for issue of IMFL "ON" and Beer "ON" licenses to registered clubs, reputed restaurants, three stars hotels and tourist lodges in the State as proposed by the Commissioner. 71. Thus it is seen that the State Government in the Excise Department had taken a decision in November, 2001 itself not to grant any further IMFL retail license in the State. This Government decision was modified in the year 2003 to exempt issue of IMFL "ON" and Beer "ON" licenses to a specified class of applicants. In other words, the Government decision not to issue any further IMFL retail licenses would continue to hold good in respect of "OFF" licenses. Nothing has been placed on record by any of the parties to show that such Government decision has since been withdrawn or modified or reviewed. As such, the embargo on issuing further IMFL "OFF" licenses in the State, including Gauhati city, continues to remain operative till date. 72. Moreover, as already noticed above, w.e.f. 18-03-2005, Rule 183(2) has been amended by bringing in the 500 meters distance restriction. However, in Herambo Singh, as discussed above, this Court has taken the view that such distance restriction would not be applicable in respect of IMFL "ON" licenses. 73. Viewed in the above context, the recommendations of the High Power Committee for a five year moratorium on grant of new licenses appear to be somewhat superfluous in view of the Government decision not to grant any further IMFL "OFF" licenses which is in force since November, 2001 and also the decision to grant IMFL "ON" licenses only to a select category of applicants, as already noticed. The further recommendation that all "OFF" counters that are violative of the 500 meters distance restriction and granted after 18-03-2005 should either be closed or asked to re-locate does not carry much weight in the absence or lack of particulars. The further recommendation that all "OFF" counters that are violative of the 500 meters distance restriction and granted after 18-03-2005 should either be closed or asked to re-locate does not carry much weight in the absence or lack of particulars. The required exercise for finding out such violators does not appear to have been done. More importantly, as is quite evident, the High Power Committee has not taken note of the Government decision dated 29-11-2001 as modified on 06-10-2003. 74. Regarding the other recommendations of the High Power Committee, such as reduction in the business hours of liquor shops and bars, declaration of additional dry days and steps to prevent drunken driving, an affidavit has been filed by the All Assam IMFL Retailers Association. In the said affidavit, the association has raised objection regarding the opening and closing time of IMFL "OFF" outlets as suggested by the Committee by contending that it will not only lead to drastic reduction in business causing loss to the State exchequer but would also give a fillip to illicit liquor trade. Besides, the business hours of IMFL shops in other States of the Country do not justify curtailment of the existing business hours in the State in the manner suggested. The association has also questioned the rationale behind the recommendation of the Committee for declaration of two dry days in a month in addition to the dry days on notified festivals. In respect of the above, all that the Court can say is that these recommendations are within the realm of administration and the Court would not like to comment on it, save and except that such administrative decisions should not be arbitrary and unreasonable. Since the State has permitted trade in liquor, it would have to act in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. 75. Regarding recommendation for revision of the Rules and to provide for a complaint redressal mechanism, without expressing any opinion on merit on such recommendation, the Court is of the view that the authority may examine such recommendation and take suitable steps, if considered necessary. It is, however, the implementation of the excise laws which has left much to be desired. The role and conduct of the excise officials and the licensing authority as public functionaries, in the public perception, has left much to be desired. Even Mr. It is, however, the implementation of the excise laws which has left much to be desired. The role and conduct of the excise officials and the licensing authority as public functionaries, in the public perception, has left much to be desired. Even Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Additional Advocate General had admitted in the course of his submissions that implementation of the Rules has not been satisfactory (see order dated 24-08-2012). Despite orders of this Court, the conduct of the Excise Department has been very disappointing. They have allowed a situation to develop to such an extent where almost all the liquor outlets, both "OFF" and "ON", had to be closed down when this Court ordered the closure of the liquor outlets whose locations are in violation of the 500 meter distance restriction under Rule 183(2) of the Rules, as amended. Implementation of the excise laws in letter and spirit has become more of an exception than the norm. There are also allegations which had been expressed in the course of the hearing that not all complaints against liquor outlets are genuine and that excise officials often act in a high handed and partisan manner without any accountability, taking advantage of the nature of liquor trade. In the above context, recommendation of the High Power Committee for constitution of a complaint redressal committee having representatives from outside the Excise Department is welcome. In fact, constitution of such complaint redressal committee has become imperative to oversee and monitor the functioning of the Excise Department. 76. That brings us to the report of the administrative enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has pointed out 13 (thirteen) cases of conversion of IMFL "ON" to "OFF" licenses after 18-03-2005 which is beyond the scope of the Act and the Rules as there is no such provision. The same is also in violation of the Government decision dated 29-11-2001. The Enquiry Officer has clearly pointed out the role of the then Excise Minister, departmental Commissioner and Secretary and the departmental Secretary in such unauthorized action. It calls for initiation of some disciplinary steps against the erring officials. The same is also in violation of the Government decision dated 29-11-2001. The Enquiry Officer has clearly pointed out the role of the then Excise Minister, departmental Commissioner and Secretary and the departmental Secretary in such unauthorized action. It calls for initiation of some disciplinary steps against the erring officials. In fact, in the affidavit filed by the State on 04-02-2013, it is stated that the report of the administrative enquiry is being examined at the Government level and that appropriate action as is considered expedient shall be taken by the Government on the basis of the findings of the enquiry report. Moreover, the report also requires a close examination regarding criminal culpability of the key players. There has to be transparency and accountability where grant of state largesse is concerned. Whether it is the departmental Minister or the officials, their powers and duties are regulated by law and they are certainly answerable for their actions. Beyond this, the Court would not like to make any further comment as neither the Minister nor the officials are before the Court. 77. The details of the 13 (thirteen) conversion cases as furnished in the enquiry report are as under:- Sl. No. Name of Shop Sanction letter No. Deputy Commissioner Level Commissioner of Excise level Government level Distance from nearest Educational / Religious Institution 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Vishal Wine Shop Licencee - Rajib Neog IMFL "ON" Licence sanctioned vide letter No. EX.110/2004/54 dated 03-11-2004. IMFL "ON" shop shifted from Barsajai Lalmati to Sarusajai (Nalapara) N.H. 37, Ghy vide Govt. letter No. Ex-110/2004/68 dated 12-07-2005. Conversion of IMFL "ON" license into IMFL "OFF" shop at Biharbari Nalapara, Ghy sanctioned vide Govt. letter No. EX.110/2004/78 dated 19-06-2007. Name of Enquiry officer for grant "ON" licence in 2004. - Shri Utpal Baruah Name of Dy. Commissioner - Shri Afsar Hazarika (Recommended for "ON" licence) (K.K. Handique open University establish in 2011 (New Establishment) Name of Enquiry officer for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence at Biharbari in 2007. - Then I.E. Lohit Sarma Name of D.C. - Avinash Joshi No specific views for conversion from either I.E. & D.C. S.E.- Bhabesh Sarma. Name of Enquiry Officer for shifting of licence. - Shri Utpal Baruah Name of Commissioner of Excise (for grant of "ON" licence in 2004) - Shri L. Phangcho. - Then I.E. Lohit Sarma Name of D.C. - Avinash Joshi No specific views for conversion from either I.E. & D.C. S.E.- Bhabesh Sarma. Name of Enquiry Officer for shifting of licence. - Shri Utpal Baruah Name of Commissioner of Excise (for grant of "ON" licence in 2004) - Shri L. Phangcho. Name of Commissioner of Excise for shifting of IMFL "ON" licence in 2005. - Shri L. Phangcho Name of Commissioner of Excise (for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence in 2007) - Shri K.N. Buragohain (No specific views for conversion the licence) Name of Secy., Excise Department in 2004 - Shri Paramesh Dutta Name of Dy. Secy. Excise Deptt. for shifting of licence - Smti. A. Talukdar Name of Under Secy., Excice Deptt. for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence. - A.W. Chowdhury - UDA (Secy. Department) Shri Arun Bora Superintendent (Secy. Department) - Shri Phatik Barman Enquiry report for grant of IMFL "ON" licence. There exists no educational and Religious Institution within 500 meters of the proposed shop. There exists no IMFL "ON" shop at Sarusajai. Enquiry report for shifting of IMFL "ON" licence. - There is no IMFL "ON" shop at Sarusajai and IMFL "ON" shop in existence at Beherbari area near N.H. 37. Both are at a distance of about 1 KM and 2 IMFL "OFF" shop is in existence at about a distance of 500 metr. There exists no education and religious Institution within 500 meter of the proposed shop. 2. A.N. Wine Shop Licencee - Shri Krishana Dey IMFL "ON" License sanctioned vide letter No. EX.180/2010/39 dated 25-05-2010. Conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence at Jayanagar vide letter No. Ex.180/2010/53 dated 12-11-2010. Name of Enquiry officer for grant of "ON" licence in 2005 (26-08-2005). - Shri Utpal Baruah Name of Dy. Commissioner - Mr. Samir Sinha Name of Enquiry Officer for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence on 25-10-2010. - Shri Monaj Kr. Saharia Name of Dy. Commissioner - Shri Prateek Hajela Name of Superintendent of Excise - S. Barthakur The distance from wine shop to Tangra Satra - 200 meters GNRC- 300 meters Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2005 - Shri L. Phangcho. Name of Commissioner of Excise 2010. - Shri Sabbir Hussain Govt. sanction letter forwarded to Dy. Commissioner, Kamrup vide office letter No.III-23/98-99/919 dated 26-05-2010. Name of Commissioner of Excise 2010. - Shri Sabbir Hussain Govt. sanction letter forwarded to Dy. Commissioner, Kamrup vide office letter No.III-23/98-99/919 dated 26-05-2010. Name of Joint Secy., Excise Department for grant of "ON" license. - Ashadeep Talukdar Name of Joint Secy., for conversion - Ashadeep Talukdar (Secy File No. not found) Enquiry report for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into "OFF" licence. There is no educational Institution and Religious and Hospital/Dispensary near 500 meter of the proposed site. 3. Vanila Wine Shop (Licencee- Sasanka Borgohain) IMFL "ON" Licence sanctioned vide letter No. EX.160/2004/35 dated 29-10-2004. Conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence sanctioned vide letter No. Ex.160/2004/43 dated 03-04-2008 at Lalmati N.H.-37, Guwahati. Name of Enquiry officer for grant of "ON" licence in 2004. - Shri Utpal Baruah Name of Dy. Commissioner in 2004 - Shri Afsar Hazarika (No Educational & Religious institution within reasonable distance of proposed "ON" license) Name of Enquiry Officer for conversion of IMFL "ON" license into IMFL "OFF" license in 12-07-2007- then I.E. Lohit Sharma Name of Dy. Commissioner - Shri Avinash Joshi S.E.- Bhabesh Sarma Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2004 - Shri L. Phangcho. Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2008. - Shri K.N. Buragohain (No specific views for conversion the license) Name of Dy. Secy., Excise Department for grant of IMFL "ON" licence. - Smti. A. Talukdar. Name of Under Secy., Excise Department for conversion of IFML "ON" licence. - The then Shri A.W. Choudhury. Enquiry report for grant "ON" license (No Educational & Religious institution within reasonable distance of proposed "ON" licence). 4. Exclusive Wine Shop Licencee- Shri Dwigendra Narayan Bhattacharyya Grant of original Beer "OFF" licence at Uzanbazar, Ghy vide Govt. letter No. EX. 13/90/29 dated 11-04-1990. Conversion cum Shifting of Beer "OFF" licence into IMFL "OFF" license from existing site to new site at Super Market, Dispur. Sanctioned vide Govt. letter No. EX.13/90/Pt.-I/23 dated 03-09-2010. Name of Enquiry officer for conversion cum shifting on 11-02-2010. - Shri Ananta Kalita Name of Dy. Commissioner - Shri Prateek Hajela S.E.- Shri S. Barthakur. Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2010. - Shri Sabbir Hussain Govt. sanction letter forwarded to Dy. Commissioner, Kamrup vide this office letter No. III-32/98-99/334 dated 06-09-2010. Secy. file not found name of Joint Secy., for conversion cum shifting of licence of Beer "OFF" licence - Smti. Commissioner - Shri Prateek Hajela S.E.- Shri S. Barthakur. Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2010. - Shri Sabbir Hussain Govt. sanction letter forwarded to Dy. Commissioner, Kamrup vide this office letter No. III-32/98-99/334 dated 06-09-2010. Secy. file not found name of Joint Secy., for conversion cum shifting of licence of Beer "OFF" licence - Smti. A. Talukdar Enquiry report for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence There is a Kalimandir and a Nursing Home within 500 meter distance of the proposed site. Kalimandir given a NOC. There is one IMFL "OFF" shop at about 130 meters distance from the proposed place. There is no educational Institution at about 500 meters distance. The Nursing Home is not directly visible from the proposed place. 5. Shri Achyut Das Beer "ON" licence sanctioned vide Govt. letter No. Ex.167/87/25 dated 19-04-1990. Conversion of Beer "ON" license into IMFL "OFF" licence as well as shifting of shop from Rowta Chariali Udalguri to R.G. Baruah Road, Ghy, sanctioned vide Govt. letter No. EX 167/87/Pt./23 dated 18-01-2011. Name of Enquiry officer for conversion cum shifting on dated 25-02-2010. - Shri Ananta Kalita Name of Dy. Commissioner Proposal sent to C.E. - Shri Prateek Hajela Name of Dy. Commissioner (licence issue) - Ashutosh Agnihotri Name of S.E. - Shri S. Barthakur. Name of Commissioner of Excise - Shri Sabbir Hussain Name of Under Secy. Excise Department for conversion of Beer "ON" licence - Shri P. Basumatary. Enquiry report for conversion and shifting of Beer "ON" shop. There is a Nursing home named as Eye Foundation a 'Durga Mandir' and an English Medium Private School within 500 metres distance from the proposed place. But the Institution are not directly visible from the proposed place. The Guwahati Muicipal Corporation has given no objection certificate in this matter. Local people also given NOC the distance of the nearest wine shop is about 700 meters from the proposed place. 6. M.N. Wine Shop, Betkuchi lakhara licencee Mala Hazarika Mazumder. IMFL "ON" licence sanctioned at Kahilipara Lokhora Road, Guwahati, vide Govt. letter No. EX.263/2001/63 dated 10-04-2007. The shop also shifted from existing site to new site at N.H- 37 Lakhara vide Govt. letter No.EX.263/2001 /75 dated 05-07-2007 Conversion of IMFL "ON' licence into IMFL "OFF" shop at Betkuchi Lakhara, Ghy. 6. M.N. Wine Shop, Betkuchi lakhara licencee Mala Hazarika Mazumder. IMFL "ON" licence sanctioned at Kahilipara Lokhora Road, Guwahati, vide Govt. letter No. EX.263/2001/63 dated 10-04-2007. The shop also shifted from existing site to new site at N.H- 37 Lakhara vide Govt. letter No.EX.263/2001 /75 dated 05-07-2007 Conversion of IMFL "ON' licence into IMFL "OFF" shop at Betkuchi Lakhara, Ghy. vide letter No.EX.263 /2001/80 dated 24-08-2009 Name of Enquiry Officer for grant of "ON" licence and shifting the licence - Shri Tamizur Rahman Name of Dy. Commissioner in 2007 - Shri Avinash Joshi Superintendent of Excise, Kamrup - Shri Bhabesh Sarma Name of Enquiry Officer for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence - Shri Tamizur Rahman Name of Dy. Commissioner in 2009 - Shri Prateek Hajela Name of Commissioner of Excise 2007 - Shri K.N. Buragohain Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2009 - Shri Sabbir Hussain Government file not submitted. Name of Dy. Secy., for grant of "ON" license - Smti. A. Talukdar. Name of Under Secy., for conversion of IMFL "ON" license - Shri P. Basumatary. Enquiry report for shifting of licence. There is no educational and religious institution is situated within the reasonable distance from the proposed site of the Bar. 7. M/S P.N. Wine Shop, Sarusajai. Shri Pradip Nandi IMFL "ON" licence sanctioned vide letter No. EX.264/2007/39 dated 12-03-2008. Conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF' licence sanctioned vide letter No. EX.264/2007/48 dated 05-11-2008. (D.C. File not submitted) Name of Enquiry Officer for grant of IMFL "ON" licence - Shri Utpal Baruah Name of Dy. Commissioner in 2008. - Shri Avinash Joshi Name of Enquiry Officer for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence Then I.E. - Shri Lohit Sarma Name of Deputy Commissioner in Sep./2008. - Abhinash Joshi Name of S.E. - Shri Bhabesh Sarma Commissioner of Excise in 2008. - Shri K.N. Buragohain Commissioner of Excise in 2008. - Shri Haren Borah (File putup directly to Commissioner of Excise, Assam). Lack in provision pointed out in Secy. File. Name of Under Secy., Excise Deptt. for grant of IMFL "ON" licence. - Shri A.W. Chowdhury. Name of Dy. Secy., Excise Deptt. for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence. - A. Talukdar. No any comment. For conversion of IMFL "ON" licence. Enquiry report for grant of IMFL "ON" licence. There exists no educational institution within 500 meters. File. Name of Under Secy., Excise Deptt. for grant of IMFL "ON" licence. - Shri A.W. Chowdhury. Name of Dy. Secy., Excise Deptt. for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence. - A. Talukdar. No any comment. For conversion of IMFL "ON" licence. Enquiry report for grant of IMFL "ON" licence. There exists no educational institution within 500 meters. There stands a Krishna (Gopal Mandir) about a distance of 100 meters from the proposed shop. National Games main sports complex about a 100 meters from proposed shop. For conversion of IMFL "ON" license forwarding report. There exists one IMFL "OFF" shop at Sarusajai area about a distance of 200 meters. 8. M/S Samrosh Wine Shop License- Shri Mohan Ch. Bey IMFL "ON" licence sanctioned at Sukhanjan Bokajan vide letter No. EX.99/2008/31 dated 13-08-2008. Conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence at Sukhanjan Bokajan, Karbi-Anglong vide Govt. letter No. EX.99/ 2008/54 dated 05-02-2009. The shop also transfer from Sukhanjan K/ Anglong to Amerigog, Khanapara, Kamrup Dist. vide Govt. letter No. EX.99/2008/90 dated 25-11-2009. Name of Enquiry Officer for transfer of IMFL "OFF" shop from K. Anglong to Kamrup (Amerigog, Khanapara). - Sri Monuj Kr. Saharia Name of Dy. Commissioner Prateek Hazela (No clear recommendation from deputy Commr.) S.E- Shri S. Barthakur Name of Commissioner of Excise in Sept./2008 - Shri H.N. Borah Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2009. - Shri Sabbir Hussain. Secy. file not submitted. Name of Dy. Secy. for grant of IMFL "ON" licence. - Smti. Ashadeep Talukdar. Name of Dy. Secy. for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence - Smti. M. Mahanta. Name of Joint Secy. for shifting of licence. - Smti. Ashadeep Talukdar. Enquiry report for shifting of licence. No religious and educational Institution and Hospital / Dispensary is situated near 500 meters of the proposed site. 9. M/S Monalisha Wine Shop VIP Road Licensee - Mihin Pd. Limbu IMFL "ON" licence sanctioned vide letter No. EX.70/2008/39 dated 05-04-2008. Conversion cum shifting of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence at Hengrabari sanctioned vide Govt. letter No. EX.70/2008/74 dated 28-09-2010. Name of Enquiry Officer for grants "ON" licence in 2008. - Shri Diganta Baruah Name of Deputy Commissioner in 2008 - Shri Avinash Joshi Name of Enquiry officer for conversion cum shifting of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence in 2010. - Shri Ananta Kalita Name of Deputy Commissioner in 2010. letter No. EX.70/2008/74 dated 28-09-2010. Name of Enquiry Officer for grants "ON" licence in 2008. - Shri Diganta Baruah Name of Deputy Commissioner in 2008 - Shri Avinash Joshi Name of Enquiry officer for conversion cum shifting of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence in 2010. - Shri Ananta Kalita Name of Deputy Commissioner in 2010. - Shri Prateek Hajela - Name of S.E. - Shri S. Borthakur. Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2008. - K.N. Buragohain Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2010. - Shri Sabbir Hussain Secy. file not submitted. Name of Under Secy. for grant of IMFL "ON" licence. The then A.W. Chowdhury. Name of Joint Secy. for conversion cum shifting of IMFL "ON" licence - Smti. Ashadeep Talukdar. Enquiry report for shifting cum conversion of licence. There is no religious and educational Institution within 500 meters distance from the proposed site. But there exists one Nursing home named Pratiksha Nursing Home at about 250 meter distance towards North East from the proposed site. Nursing home Authority has given NOC. The distance of the nearest one shop is about 1.25 KM from the proposed shop. 10. M/s Rubi Wine Shop at Nepali Chowk, Noonmati Licencee Mrs. Rubeeka Pradhan IMFL "ON" licence sanctioned vide Govt. letter No. EX.60/2006/24 dated 28-02-2006. Conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence sanctioned vide letter No. EX.60/2006/32 dated 21-02-2007. The shop also shifted from Satgaon to Nepali Chowk, Noonmati vide Govt. letter No. EX.60/2006/48 dated 17-05-2007. Name of Enquiry officer for grant of "ON" licence in 2006. - Shri Diganta Baruah Name of D.C. in 2006 - Shri Samir Sinha Enquiry report for shifting the shop from Satgaon to Nepali Chowk, Noonmati (I.E. enquiry report) are vague. Enquiry officer - Shri Diganta Baruah - S.E. objected to conversion S.E.-B. Sarma. Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2006. - Shri L. Phangcho. Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2007. - Shri K.N. Buragohain Joint Commissioner of Excise points out Restriction on conversion. No proposal for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence sent to Govt. from C.E., Assam. Name of Dy. Secy. for grant of IMFL "ON" licence - Smti. A. Talukdar. Name of Under Secy. for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence and shifting. - The then - Shri A.W. Chowdhury Enquiry report for shifting of licence. No proposal for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence sent to Govt. from C.E., Assam. Name of Dy. Secy. for grant of IMFL "ON" licence - Smti. A. Talukdar. Name of Under Secy. for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence and shifting. - The then - Shri A.W. Chowdhury Enquiry report for shifting of licence. There is a private school situated at a distance of 50 meters. School authority also given a NOC. There also a High School situated at a distance of 200 meters. Both the Institution one not directly visible from the proposed site. There is a building and a motorable Road between the proposed site and High School which seems to be reasonable. 11. Shri Biren Teron G.S. Road, Christanbasti IMFL "ON" sanctioned vide Govt. letter No. EX.98/2008/40 dated 13-08-2008. Shifting of IMFL "OFF" shop of Shri Biren Terang from Donkamokam K/ Anglong to Japorigog, Ghy., vide Govt. letter No. EX.98/2008/84 dated 25-11-2009. Conversion of IMFL "ON" licence at Donkamokam K/Anglong vide Govt. letter No. EX98/2008/60 dated 20-02-09. NOC from Church and Shiv Mandir not found (Fine not found) Name of Commissioner of Excise - Shri Sabbir Hussain File not found Name of Dy. Secy for grant of "ON" licence and conversion - Smti. A. Talukdar 90 meters approx from the shiv mandir as per S.E. report 12. M/S Siva Wine Shop Licencee - Birarani Devi IMFL "ON" licence sanctioned vide letter No. EX.187/2005/27 dated 18-11-2005. Conversion cum shifting of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence at Natun Bazar, Guwahati-29 vide Govt. letter No. EX.187/2005/46 dated 30-10-2010. Name of Deputy Commissioner - Shri Prateek Hajela Name of Enquiry officer - Shah Alam Bhuyan Name of Dy. Commissioner - Shri A. Agnihotri Name of Enquiry officer - Shri Monaj Kr. Sahariaa Name of S.E. - Shri S. Borthakur. Name of commissioner of Excise in 2005. - Shri L. Phangcho. Name of commissioner of Excise in 2010. - Shri Sabbir Hussain Name of Dy. Secy., Excise Deptt. for grant of "ON" license. - Smti. A. Talukdar Name of Under Secy. Excise Deptt. for conversion cum shifting of IMFL "ON" licence - P. Basumatary. Enquiry report for conversion cum shifting of licence. No educational / religious Institution is situated near 500 meters. No Hospital / Dispensary is situated near 500 meters within 500 meters no IMFL "ON" and "OFF" shop is situated. 13. - Smti. A. Talukdar Name of Under Secy. Excise Deptt. for conversion cum shifting of IMFL "ON" licence - P. Basumatary. Enquiry report for conversion cum shifting of licence. No educational / religious Institution is situated near 500 meters. No Hospital / Dispensary is situated near 500 meters within 500 meters no IMFL "ON" and "OFF" shop is situated. 13. M/S City Park Wine Shop Licencee Shri Paresh Agarwalla IMFL "ON" licence sanctioned vide letter No. EX.138/2009/31 dated 25-08-2009. Conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence sanctioned vide letter No. EX.138/2009/45 dated 19-01-2010. Shifting of IMFL "OFF" shop from existing site Pachim Boragaon, Ghy to new site at Garpandu, Kumarpara, Pandu Nagar, Ghy. vide Govt. letter No. EX/138/2007/62 dated 11-11-2010. Name of Enquiry officer for grant of IMFL "ON" licence - Shri Pritom Baruah Name of Deputy Commissioner. - Shri Prateek Hajela Name of Enquiry officer for conversion of IMFL "ON" licence into IMFL "OFF" licence - Shri Amarendra Nath Name of D.C. - Shri Prateek Hajela Name of Enquiry officer for shifting of shop - Shri Prasanna Singh Name of Deputy Commissioner - Shri Prateek Hajela Final issue of licence - Shri Ashutosh Agnihtri Name of S.E.- Shri S. Borthakur Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2009. - Shri Sabbir Hussain Name of Commissioner of Excise in 2010 - Shri Sabbir Hussain Name of Commissioner of Excise in Nov/2011 - Shri Sabbir Hussain Name of Dy. Secy., for grant of "ON" licence. - Smti. M. Mahanta Name of Joint Secy., for conversion and shifting of licence. - Shri A. Talukdar Enquiry report for shifting of licence. There is only one IMFL "OFF" shop in the name and Style RKB wine shop at a distance about 150 meter from the proposed site. There is no educational or religious Institution or any Dispensary / Hospital within the radius of 500 meters. As per the Enquiry Officer, these 13(thirteen) cases are in violation of the excise laws in as much as there is no provision for conversion of "ON" licence to "OFF license or vice-versa under the Act and the Rules. Such conversion are, therefore, unauthorized. Moreover, these 13(thirteen) "OFF" licences granted by way of conversion is also violative of the Government decision dated 29-11-2001 which prohibited issuance of further IMFL "OFF" licenses. Such conversion are, therefore, unauthorized. Moreover, these 13(thirteen) "OFF" licences granted by way of conversion is also violative of the Government decision dated 29-11-2001 which prohibited issuance of further IMFL "OFF" licenses. Additionally, these licences will also have to be tested with reference to Rule 183(2) of the Rules, as amended and the other provisions. 78. Some of the 13 (thirteen) affected parties have filed applications for impleadment as well as for vacation of the closure order operating against these premises. Shri Paresh Agarwalla and Smti. E. Bira Rani Devi, who were granted IMFL "OFF" licences on 19-01-2010 and 30-10-2010 respectively following conversion from their IMFL "ON" licences, have filed M.C. No.3242/2012 for impleadment as respondents. Likewise, Shri Achyut Das, who has been granted IMFL "OFF" licence on 18-01-2011 following conversion of his "ON" licence, has filed M.C. No.3233/2012 for impleadment and M.C. No.3234/2012 for vacation of closure order. Shri Biren Teron, who was granted IMFL "ON" licence on 13-08-2008 and got the same converted to IMFL "OFF' licence on 20-02-2009, has filed M.C. Nos.286/2013 and 287/2013 for impleadment as party respondent and for vacation of the closure order respectively. Shri Mohan Ch. Bey, who was granted IMFL "OFF" licence on 05-02-2009 following conversion of his IMFL "ON" licence, has filed M.C. No.288/2013 for impleadment as respondent and M.C. No.289/2013 for vacation of the closure order. Submissions were made on their behalf by their respective learned counsel. However, in view of the final direction that is proposed in the light of the discussions made above, a detailed deliberation on each of the individual cases is considered not necessary. 79. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, the Court is of the view that the present proceeding should now be concluded by issuing the following directions :- (1) The State Government in the Excise Department should constitute a grievance redressal committee as an administrative measure to oversee and monitor the functioning of the department in the light of the observations made. (2) The State Government in the Excise Department shall carry out the necessary exercise in terms of Rule 184 of the Rules in respect of all liquor licences granted in Guwahati city after the decision of this Court in Rubul Kanti Roy i.e., after 13-03-2000, as a one time measure, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from today. (3) Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department shall take a decision on the 13 (thirteen) cases of conversion as pointed out in the enquiry report, after giving the licensees notice and an opportunity of hearing. He shall pass appropriate order(s) in accordance with law within a period of four months from today. (4) The enquiry report of the administrative enquiry shall be placed before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam to examine any negligence, dereliction or misconduct in the discharge of duty by any of the Government servants mentioned in the said report or any other Government servant found responsible in the course of such examination. Depending upon the outcome of such examination, necessary consequential steps shall be taken. However, such examination should be completed within a definite time frame of four months from today. (5) A copy of the enquiry report of the administrative enquiry dated 30-01-2013 shall also be placed before the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Assam Police to examine criminal culpability of the persons / officials mentioned in the enquiry report or any other person found responsible in the course of such examination. Depending upon the outcome of such examination, consequential steps shall be taken. (6) The State Government in the Excise Department may consider the recommendations of the High Power Committee regarding amendment of the Rules and take suitable steps, if considered necessary. (7) The Government decision dated 29-11-2001 as modified on 06-10-2003 shall continue to remain operative till such time fresh decision is considered necessary by the Government. 80. Writ petition is disposed of.