Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 185 (GAU)

Debashish Chakrabarty v. State of Assam

2016-03-11

AJIT SINGH, HRISHIKESH ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the State respondents. 2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 3.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed appellants' WP(C) 1515/2016. 3. In WP(C) 1515/2016, the appellants two in number challenged the settlement of country spirit shops by the State Government on the ground of non-compliance of statutory prescriptions as laid down in the Assam Excise Act, 1910 (for short 'the 1910 Act') and the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 (for short 'the 1945 Rules'). The main ground for challenge was that provisions of Rules 191 to 195 of the 1945 Rules to elicit ascertainment of public opinion /objections for settlement of country' spirit shops were not complied with. 4. Since the allegations in the writ petition were general in nature and in respect to settlement of all country spirit shops in the State, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order. Operative part of the order reads as under: "Rule 193(1) primarily requires, the authorities to whom the list prepared under Rule 192 is sent by the District Collector to issue notice inviting objections. Not even one of such authorities has been made a party respondent in the writ application. Omnibus statements have been in the writ petition that the District Collectors had not sent the list of country spirit shops to the authorities mentioned in Rule 193 and such statement is belied by Annexure C series. The petitioners have not disclosed in the writ petition in respect of which particular shop they have got grievance. Not one specific case is cited by the petitioners where there is no publication of notices under Rule 193 of the 1945 Rules and in such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court ought not to embark upon a roving enquiry. In the meantime third party rights have been created and the petitioners ought to have made the settlement holders parties to the proceeding. In a given case, where public interest calls for, the writ Court will not shy away from entertaining a writ application on the ground of lack of locus standi. In the meantime third party rights have been created and the petitioners ought to have made the settlement holders parties to the proceeding. In a given case, where public interest calls for, the writ Court will not shy away from entertaining a writ application on the ground of lack of locus standi. But this is certainly not a case which will warrant this Court to invoke its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioners have failed to demonstrate with any acceptable material that there was violation of the Rules of 1945. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost." (emphasis supplied) 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants has fairly agreed that in the writ petition challenge against the settlement of country spirit shops was general in nature. We, therefore, find no good ground to admit the appeal. We, however, make it clear that the appellant will be at liberty to challenge the settlement of specific country spirit shops on the ground that provisions of Rules 191 to 195 of the Rules 1945 have not been complied with in respect to those shops. With the above liberty this appeal is dismissed.