Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2849/2026 of PUTULEE KALITA ALIAS PUTULEE RANI KALITA AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS on 9 June 2026
GAHC010104232026 2026:GAU-AS:8270 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2849/2026 PUTULEE KALITA ALIAS PUTULEE RANI KALITA AND ANR DAUGHTER OF LATE ARABINDA KALITA ,RESIDENT OF PUB SITARA, RANGIA, KAMRUP, RURAL, ASSAM - 781354 2:
GAHC010104232026
2026:GAU-AS:8270
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2849/2026
PUTULEE KALITA ALIAS PUTULEE RANI KALITA AND ANR
DAUGHTER OF LATE ARABINDA KALITA ,RESIDENT OF PUB SITARA, RANGIA, KAMRUP, RURAL, ASSAM - 781354
2: NAYAN MAHANTA
SON OF NILAKANTA MAHANTA
RESIDENT OF PUB SITARA
RANGIA
KAMRUP
ASSAM -78135
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -781006
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR- BELTOLA ROAD GUWAHATI -78106
ASSAM
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
KAMRUP
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
781031
4:THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE RANGIA CO DISTRICT
KAMRUP
ASSAM
781031
5:THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
RANGIA CO DISTRICT
KAMRUP
ASSAM
781031
6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (RURAL)
AMINGAON
NEAR DC OFFICE ROAD
GUWAHATI - HAJO ROAD
AMINGAON
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (RURAL)
781031
ASSAM
7:THE CHAIRMAN
RANGIA MUNICIPAL BOARD
RANGIA MUNICIPAL BOARD
KAMRUP
PIN-781354
ASSAM
8:SHRI JITEN DAS
SON OF SATYARAM DAS
RESIDENT OF RANGIA
WARD NO 7
P.O. AND P.S.- RANGIA
KAMRUP
ASSAM -78135
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. M. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : MR. R.R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 10.06.2026
Heard Ms. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Excise Department.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had lodged complaints against the proposed grant of a excise license to the private respondent No. 8 on various grounds, including the ground of neighbourhood in terms with Rule 295 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2020. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said complaint was considered and a report was submitted by the Inspector of Excise, Rangia Co-District stating inter alia, that the petitioners had withdrawn their objections. This aspect, the petitioners came to learn on filing application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the no-objection enclosed with the report dated 09.03.2026, more particularly in respect to the petitioner No. 1, is not her signature.
3. During the course of the hearing, this Court enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners had approached the authorities on the basis that the no-objection forming the basis of the report dated 09.03.2026 did not contain the signature of the petitioner No. 1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners had verbally approached the authorities, but the petitioners ought to have submitted representation or complaint in that regard. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the petitioners would be well advised not to pursue with the instant writ petition, rather approach the authorities concerned informing that the no objection which formed the basis of the report of the Inspector of Excise, Rangia Co-District was not a no objection issued by the petitioner No. 1 inasmuch as the said signature of the petitioner No. 1, so appearing is a manufactured one.
5. Taking into account the above submissions, the instant writ petition stands closed.
6. It is, however, observed that the closure of the present writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioners from approaching the authorities concerned intimating that the no- objection of the petitioner No. 1 was a manufactured document.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant