WP(C) 830/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. S.Sea l, learned standing counsel, Excise Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of order dated 22/6/2009 (Annexure 5) and order dated 1/12/2010 (Annexu re 7). By Annexure 5 order dated 22/6/2011, the petitioner was allowed one-year time to shift his I.M.F.L shop premises to a new site as per Assam Excise Rule. By Annexure 7 order dated 1/12/2010, it was conveyed that the shop premises of t he petitioner would be put under Lock & Key and the permit to run the shop would be stopped. According to the petitioner the aforesaid letters are quite illegal and he has b een discriminated in the matter. The petitioner was earlier directed to shift hi s shop premises by letter dated 5/1/2009 raising a grievance against which the p etitioner filed W.P (C) 360/2009 which was disposed of on 23/5/2009 directing to dispose of the representation dated 7/1/2009 by which the petitioner had prayed for granting sufficient time to shift his shop. After the aforesaid letter, dis posal of the earlier writ petition, the order dated 22/6/2009 (Annexure 5) was issued by the Superintendent of Excise Lakhimpur granting one year time to the p etitioner to shift the shop premises. More than one and half year has gone by si nce then and the petitioner did nothing. Situated thus the Excise Department issued the order dated 1/12/2010 (Annexure 7 ) conveying that the shop premises would be under Lock & Key with due permission of the district administration. Having regard to the earlier order passed by this Court on 25/3/2009 in W.P(C) 3 60/2009 by which the authority was directed to dispose of the representation mad e by the petitioner for granting sufficient time to shift the wine shop and the order followed thereafter (Annexure 5) granting one year time to shift the shop premise, I am of the opinion that the issue cannot be re-open now in which the c laim of the petitioner is that he is not required to shift the wine shop at all. The petitioner himself having agreed for shifting of the wine shop and he havin g been granted time to do so in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court, he cannot resile back from the said position so as to claim total exemption for shifting of the shop. If the petitioner requires some more time, it will be ope n for him to approach the authority. No opinion is expressed in this regard as t o whether the petitioner is entitled to any further extension or not. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.