JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. R. M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Excise Department; Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the District Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro); Ms. P. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Assam as well as Mr. B. J. Ghosh, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking an appropriate writ direction and order for quashing the communication dated 27.04.2016 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department thereby directing the petitioner to shift his IMFL “OFF” License Shop to any other location on the ground of violation of Rule 183 of the ASSAM EXCISE RULES , 1945. The petitioner further seeks appropriate directions that the petitioner may be permitted to continue to run the IMFL “OFF” License Shop in the name and style of “M/s Rishi’s Wine Hut” from the existing location at Bora Marketing Complex, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati. 3. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that the ASSAM EXCISE RULES , 1945 have been superseded by the ASSAM EXCISE RULES , 2016 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2016’). 4. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the relevant facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. 5. The petitioner herein was issued an IMFL “OFF” License Shop on 23.07.1998 in a location situated at Bora Market Complex, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati-5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner continued to run the IMFL “OFF” License Shop without any disturbance. On 25.02.2016, a complaint was made by the Secretary of the respondent No.6 to the Secretary, Excise Department alleging that the said petitioner's IMFL “OFF” License Shop is within 20 meters of the respondent No.6 which is a Degree College affiliated to the Gauhati University providing Higher Secondary and Degree Courses. The said communication was followed by another representation dated 29.05.2016 to the Staff Officer, Office of the Chief Secretary, Assam by the respondent No.6. The said communication was followed by another representation dated 29.05.2016 to the Staff Officer, Office of the Chief Secretary, Assam by the respondent No.6. Resultantly, the impugned communication was issued on 27.04.2016, thereby directing the petitioner to shift the petitioner's IMFL “OFF” License Shop to any other location in conformity with the ASSAM EXCISE RULES , 1945, within 15 days, failing which the license was to be cancelled. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The record reveals that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, this Court issued notice and further stayed the impugned order dated 27.04.2016. The interim order thereupon has been continued from time to time. 7. The record reveals that the respondent No.6 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition supporting the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 and stating inter alia that the petitioner's IMFL “OFF” License Shop cannot be allowed to be continue in view of the violation to Rule 183 of the ASSAM EXCISE RULES , 1945. It is interesting to take note of that in the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.6, the permission for the respondent No.6 to run its educational institution issued by the Assam Higher Secondary Council, Bamunimaidan, dated 22.04.2002 had been enclosed. A perusal of the said permission reveals that the respondent No.6 was permitted to run its educational institution at R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati with a condition that the said educational institution would be shifted to its own building constructed in its own land within 3 years, failing which permission shall be withdrawn. 8. At this stage, it is also very pertinent to mention that the respondent No.6 was granted permission to run an educational institution at Ahomgaon, Kotakipara Road, Guwahati-781035 and this permission has been continued from time to time. However, there is nothing on record that after the lapse of three years from the date the permission was granted to respondent No.6, i.e. on 22.04.2002, any further extension was granted by the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council to the respondent No.6 to continue its junior college at R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781005. 9. It is further seen that the official respondents herein have also filed their affidavit-in-opposition thereby supporting the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 on the ground of infraction to Rule 183 of the ASSAM EXCISE RULES , 1945. 10. 9. It is further seen that the official respondents herein have also filed their affidavit-in-opposition thereby supporting the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 on the ground of infraction to Rule 183 of the ASSAM EXCISE RULES , 1945. 10. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to note that the ASSAM EXCISE RULES , 1945 have been superseded by the Rules of 2016. Rule 289 of the Rules of 2016 is relevant for the purpose of the present dispute, and as such, the said Rule is reproduced herein under:- “289. (1) The liquor shops of any description 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. (2) No IMFL and Beer retail 'OFF' licence or retail `ON' licence shall be established in Municipal corporation areas within a distance of 50(fifty) meters, in Municipality and Town Committee areas within a distance of 100 (one hundred) metres and in Gaon Panchayat or equivalent body areas within a distance of 150 (one hundred fifty) metres from any place of public worship or educational institution or hospitals. No licence for retail sale of liquor or any other intoxicants shall be granted at a site situated within 100 (one hundred)metres from the midpoint of any National or State Highway. Explanation: "distance" 'referred in sub-rule (2) above shall be measured from the mid-point of the entrance of the shop, alongwith the nearest paths by which a pedestrian ordinarily reaches to the midpoint of the Nearest gate of the institution, if there is compound wall and if there is no compound wall to the midpoint of the nearest entrance of the institution. "Educational institutions" for the purpose of this rule means any Primary School, Middle School and High School recognized by the State Government or Central Government or any College affiliated to any University established by law, but does not include any private coaching or tutorial institution. “Public place of worship” for the purpose of this rule means, a place of public worship having a pucca structure with a covered area of more than 200 square feet which is managed or owned by a registered public trust or a well-established and recognized management committee. “Public place of worship” for the purpose of this rule means, a place of public worship having a pucca structure with a covered area of more than 200 square feet which is managed or owned by a registered public trust or a well-established and recognized management committee. "Hospitals" for the purpose of this rule means, any Government Hospital, Primary Health Centre or Primary Health Unit and includes Private Nursing Home, which has facility of a minimum of 30 (thirty) beds for treatment, of inpatients. For the purpose of this rule such part of National Highway or State Highway which are situated within the limits of any Municipal Corporation. Municipality or Town Committee, shall not be treated as restriction: Provided that even when any place of public worship or educational institution or hospital comes into existence subsequent to the establishment of the licensed premises, the aforesaid distance provision shall apply, subject to the provision that the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to shift or relocate his premises. (3) Premises for the wholesale and retail sale of foreign liquor shall not be allowed within the same compound.” 11. From a perusal of the above quoted Rule, it would be seen that no IMFL and Beer retail 'OFF' license or retail `ON' license shall be established in a Municipal Corporation area within a distance of 50 meters in the Municipality and Town Committee area; within a distance of 100 meters in Gaon Panchayat or equivalent body areas and within a distance of 150 meters from any place of public worship or educational institution or hospital. The said Rule further stipulates as to what would be an educational institution for the purpose of the said Rule. It is stipulated that an educational institution for the purpose of the said Rule would mean a Primary School, Middle School and a High School recognized by the State Government or the Central Government or any College affiliated to any University establishment by law, but does not include any private coaching or tutorial institution. 12. It is stipulated that an educational institution for the purpose of the said Rule would mean a Primary School, Middle School and a High School recognized by the State Government or the Central Government or any College affiliated to any University establishment by law, but does not include any private coaching or tutorial institution. 12. It is further apposite to take note of the proviso to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 289 of the Rules of 2016 in as much as in terms with the said proviso even when any place of public worship or educational institution or hospital comes into existence subsequent to the establishment of the licensed premises, the aforesaid distance provisions shall apply, subject to the provisions that the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to shift or relocate his premises. 13. In the instant case admittedly, the petitioner's license was issued in the year 1998 and the respondent No.6 had opened its unit of the educational institution in the year 2002. Therefore, by virtue of the said proviso to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 289 of the Rules of 2016, the petitioner would be required to shift, provided the respondent No.6’s branch would come within the ambit of an educational institution recognized by the State Government or the Central Government or a college affiliated to any University established by law. 14. At this stage, this Court further finds it relevant to take note of the provisions of the Assam Non-Governmental Educational Institutions (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006 and the Assam Non-Governmental Educational Institutions (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007 which stipulate that permission is required for establishment of a Non-Governmental Educational Institution and registration. 15. A further perusal of the Assam Non-Governmental Educational Institutions (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007 would show that a Non-Governmental Educational Institution is also required to provide various details as to its building and its campuses. 16. In the instant case, the records reveal that the respondent No.6 has its main campus at Ahomgaon, Guwahati and was operating a branch at Bora Market, R.G. Baruah Road, as is apparent from the enquiry report so submitted before this Court on 12.08.2025. 16. In the instant case, the records reveal that the respondent No.6 has its main campus at Ahomgaon, Guwahati and was operating a branch at Bora Market, R.G. Baruah Road, as is apparent from the enquiry report so submitted before this Court on 12.08.2025. But the permission so granted to the respondent No.6 to run its branch at Bora Market, R.G. Baruah Road was only for a period of three years with a further stipulation that if the said branch is not shifted to the respondent No.6’s own building constructed on its own land, the said permission would be withdrawn. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondent No.6 thereupon took steps for shifting its branch to its own building constructed upon its own land within the time so permitted as well as the permission so accorded earlier was extended. 17. In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the submissions of Ms. P Das, the learned Standing Counsel of the Secondary Education Department, who submitted on instructions that there was no extension of the permission granted to the respondent No.6 to continue its branch at Bora Market, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati-5. 18. Under such circumstances, it is therefore, the opinion of this Court that the bar which is being contained in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 289 of the Rules of 2016 in so far as educational institution is concerned would not apply in the case of the petitioner in as much as the branch of the respondent No.6 continuing at Bora Market, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati-5 cannot be considered to come within the ambit of a recognized educational institution. 19. Accordingly, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 requires interference. 20. The writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (i) The impugned order dated 27.04.2016 is set aside and quashed. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs.