WP(C) 1499/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhar, learned standi ng counsel, Excise Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and M r. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 as well as Ms Phukan , learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner, who is a licensee in respect of IMFL ’OFF’ license granted under the provision of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, by the present petition, has cha llenged the decision of the authority to grant IMFL ’ON’ license to the responde nt No. 6, on the ground that the same being within the radius of 1 km of the pet itioner’s licensed premises, is in violation of Rule 182 of the Assam Excise Rul es. Referring to the provisions contained in Rule 182 of the Assam Excise Rules (in short the ’Rules’), Mr. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitt ed that there cannot be any liquor shops within the radius of 1 km from the exis ting licensed shop unless of course such license is granted for special reasons. According to the learned counsel no special reason has been given for granting the license in favour of the respondent No. 6. Such permission for issuance of t he license in favour of the respondent No. 6 is, therefore, contrary to the prov ision contained in Rule 182 of the Rules and needs to be set aside. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure for granting of ’ON’ or ’OFF’ IMFL license being the same, in view of the provision contained under Rule 182 of the Rules the decision of the respondent authorities to grant ’ON’ license to the respondent No. 6 which is within one km radius of ’OFF’ license shop of the petitioner is illegal. Mr. Dhar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Excise Department and Mr. D eka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 referring to the affidav it-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.1 have submitted that Rule 182 of th e Rules provides that the distance between two existing shops of the same descri ption should not be less than one km except for special reasons. According to th e learned counsel since the petitioner has been granted the ’OFF’ IMFL license t here cannot be another ’OFF’ licensed premises within 1 km radius but such restr iction will not be applicable to the license which has been granted in favour of the respondent No. 6, the same being IMFL ’ON’ license. Ms Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents also suppor ts the arguments advanced made by the learned counsel appearing for the Excise D epartment. Rule 182 of the Rules provides that in rural areas, no license of the same descr iption, within the radius of 1 km of the existing license premises can be grante d, except for special reasons to be recorded. In the instant case the petitioner has been issued with the IMFL ’OFF’ license a nd hence there cannot be another IMFL ’OFF’ license shop within the radius of 1 km, except for special reasons to be recorded for granting such license. The aut hority has taken the decision to grant IMFL ’ON’ license in favour of respondent No. 6 which is within 1 km radius of the petitioner’s licensed shop. Though the procedure for granting of the IMFL ’ON’ and ’OFF’ license is same the condition s in both the licenses are different. In an IMFL ’OFF’ license shop the consumer can take the liquor out, which cannot be consumed in the shop while in the ’ON’ license shop the consumer has to consume the liquor in the shop. The descriptio n of the two licenses is therefore different. Since Rule 182 of the Rules prescr ibe that the two liquor shops of same description cannot exist within the radius of 1 km subject to the exception that it can be granted for special reasons, it cannot be said that the provision of the said Rules has been violated by the sa id respondents in deciding to grant the IMFL ’ON’ license in favour of the respo ndent No. 6. In view of the above position, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.