An excise licence cannot be suspended for alleged breach without prior show-cause opportunity.

The petitioner, authorised person of M/s Star Hotel, operating “T Sin Q Bar” under an IMFL on-bar-cum-restaurant licence, challenged the order dated 04.07.2026 passed by Respondent No. 3 suspending the licence “until further orders” on the basis of a complaint made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Police District, Guwahati.

The petitioner asserted that the licence fee and additional charges for extended operating hours had been duly paid and that the suspension was imposed without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity of hearing.

Representations dated 06.07.2026, 07.07.2026 and 09.07.2026 were allegedly not considered, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

Whether the petitioner’s excise licence could be suspended under Section 30(c) of the Assam Excise Act, 2000 without granting the licence-holder an opportunity to show cause.

Whether an indefinite suspension of the licence, expressed to operate “until further orders” and without specifying its duration or linking it to cancellation proceedings, was legally sustainable.

The Court applied Section 30 of the Assam Excise Act, 2000, which empowers the authority that granted a licence, permit or pass to cancel or suspend it on the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (d).

Since clauses (a), (b) and (d) were not applicable, the relevant provision was Section 30(c), concerning breach by the licence-holder, his servants, or persons acting with his express or implied permission of the terms or conditions of the licence.

The Court held that where suspension or cancellation is founded on an alleged breach requiring the authority’s subjective satisfaction, the licence-holder must ordinarily be given an opportunity to show cause before adverse action is taken. This requirement forms part of the principles of natural justice and the protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The impugned order was expressly issued under Section 30 of the Act, but the alleged breach was not established through any prior process giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

Because the authority’s power under Section 30(c) depended upon satisfaction that the licence conditions had been breached, that satisfaction could not be unilaterally reached solely on the basis of a complaint without hearing the licence-holder.

The Court further found the order legally deficient because it imposed suspension “until further orders,” without prescribing a time period or stating that the suspension was pending initiation of cancellation proceedings.

The absence of procedural safeguards and the indefinite nature of the suspension rendered the order contrary to natural justice and violative of Article 21.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

However, liberty was granted to the respondent authorities, particularly the Licensing Authority, to proceed in accordance with law if any violation of the licence conditions was found.

The petitioner’s undertaking not to violate the licence conditions, the Assam Excise Act, 2000, or the rules framed thereunder was recorded, and no order as to costs was made.