Liquor licence restrictions along highways must align with the Supreme Court's ban, including stretches within municipal limits.

The Assam Excise Rules, 2016 explanation excluding highway stretches within municipal and similar local limits from the liquor-licence distance restriction was examined against the Supreme Court's prohibition on granting liquor licences along National and State Highways, including stretches within municipal limits. In that legal setting, the State could no longer permit licences on such highway stretches, and premises operating contrary to that mandate could not continue unaffected. Rather than striking down the explanation, the HC left it to the State Government to re-examine the provision in light of the Supreme Court's direction. No relief was granted on the challenge, and the matter was disposed of with a reconsideration direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the explanation appended to Rule 289(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 was liable to be interfered with in view of the Supreme Court's direction prohibiting grant of liquor licences along National and State Highways, including stretches falling within municipal limits.

Analysis: The impugned rule prescribed a distance restriction for liquor licences from the midpoint of National and State Highways and contained an explanation excluding highway stretches within Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Town Committee limits from the restriction. The Court noted the Supreme Court's later direction that all States and Union Territories must cease granting liquor licences along National and State Highways and that the prohibition extends to stretches within municipal and similar local limits. In that legal setting, the State was no longer free to grant such licences on highway stretches, and the petitioner's licence premises could not continue to operate contrary to that command. Instead of striking down the explanation, the Court left it to the State Government to re-examine the provision in light of the Supreme Court order.

Conclusion: No relief was granted to the petitioner on the challenge to the explanation, and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State to reconsider the provision consistently with the Supreme Court's mandate.

---