Collector Directed to Expeditiously Decide Representations Opposing Relocation of Liquor Shop Within Gram Panchayat Limits

The Petitioner, President of Gohar Jan Seva Samiti, challenged a letter dated 27.01.2026 issued by the District Excise Officer (Respondent No. 4) which permitted the opening/shifting of an English liquor shop to a government building within the limits of Gram Panchayat Hirmi

Previously, a liquor shop in the area was closed due to public protest regarding social disturbance and criminal activities.

While the shop had been moved to Mohra Road, a new proposal was initiated to move it back to a building within the village limits.

Two organizations, Gohar Jan Seva Samiti and Anjor Gram Sangathan, submitted representations dated 04.02.2026 and 03.02.2026 to the Collector opposing this move, which remained pending.

The Petitioner sought to quash the relocation order and compel the authorities to decide on the pending representations.

1. Whether the Court should intervene to quash the relocation of the liquor shop and direct the respondent authorities to consider the pending public representations against the said relocation.

The court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The primary legal principle applied was the administrative duty of State authorities to consider and decide upon representations/complaints filed by citizens or social organizations regarding public nuisance and the location of liquor vends in accordance with law.

The court adopted a "limited prayer" approach, focusing on procedural fairness and administrative exhaustion rather than adjudicated merits.

The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the liquor shop would cause social disturbance or if its location violated specific excise rules.

Instead, the Court focused on the fact that the Petitioner’s and the Mahila Sangathan’s representations were still pending before the Collector (Respondent No. 3).

The Court noted the Petitioner's willingness to limit the prayer to a time-bound direction for the disposal of these representations.

The State counsel expressed no objection to the authorities deciding the matter in accordance with the law.

Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to direct the administrative head of the district to resolve the dispute at the first instance.

It directed Respondent No. 3 (The Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara) to expeditiously decide the representations/applications dated 04.02.2026 and 03.02.2026 filed by Gohar Jan Seva Samiti and Anjor Gram Sangathan, respectively.

This decision must be rendered in accordance with the law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the court’s order.

No costs were awarded.