Dulumoni Talukdar vs State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned State counsel as well as Mr. K.P. Pathak,

learned standing counsel, Excise Department for the respondents.

Today Ms. Bhattacharjee based on certain written instruction has submitted that the liquor shop had been temporarily ordered to be closed on the

advice of the District Magistrate, Bajali, apprehending breach of public peace and tranquillity as per information received through the Officer-In-

Charge of Pathsala Outpost. Accordingly, it has been submitted that this action was taken by the authorities to prevent any breach of public peace and

tranquillity in the area.

Though the public authorities are empowered to take necessary actions to prevent any breach of public peace and tranquillity, in the present case what

is important to note is that the petitioner is engaged in a lawful and legitimate trade and profession of running the IMFL shop on permit being granted

by the competent authority.

As has been submitted by Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the Excise Department, such permits are given after necessary assessment

is made on the desirability or non-desirability of opening such shops in the locality and in the present case, at least at the time of grant of the permit,

there was no objection from anyone residing near the shop premise. Mr. Pathak submits that while granting permit, only those persons who reside

within 75 meters of the premise are entitled to raise any objection about the running up such IMFL shop in that area. It has been also submitted that

the Excise authorities have learnt that those who are creating problem are residents beyond that geographical area.

Be that as it may, since the petitioner was granted the license to run the IMFL “ON†shop, there is an obligation on the part of the authorities also

to ensure that he/she is able to run the business without being unduly disturbed by any lumpen or unruly persons. Accordingly, the authorities also have

to take appropriate actions to prevent such elements from disturbing the peaceful running of her shop.

This Court also fails to understand when there are restrictions on gathering/movement of people because of Covid pandemic, how people are allowed

to gather near the shop of the petitioner to create problem for the shopkeeper to run her business. The authorities also are to look into this aspect also.

This Court also has kept in mind the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this alleged apprehension of public peace and

tranquillity is because of certain motivated people in the locality who are hostile to the petitioner and who are not living within 75 m of the shop.

Under the circumstances, the authorities will make further enquiry as to whether such disturbances are genuine or motivated and if not genuine, the

authorities will take necessary action against those responsible, so that the petitioner can run her business.

Accordingly, let the authorities make further enquiry/verification of the issue relating to apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquillity on

account of the running of the IMFL shop by the petitioner and submit a report before this Court by the next date, so that appropriate order can be

passed on that day.

List the matter again on 11.06.2021.