The judgment came in a writ petition filed by Legitha D. Sangma, a retail vendor of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), challenging the verbal directive of the Superintendent of Excise, Tura, compelling her to shut down her wine shop despite holding a valid license and having obtained requisite permissions and a No Objection Certificate for shifting its location.

Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed, “…The Reports dated 19.12.2025 and 19.03.2026, which have been quoted earlier in this judgment apart from other facts, have however also revealed the existence of another establishment i.e. a Restaurant-cum-Bar at a distance of 105 meters away from the wine store of the petitioner, and also the rampant illegal sale of liquor in the area itself. The objections therefore, of the respondents Nos. 4 to 7, appear to be unsustainable as first even factually, from the proximity view point, the Churches which they represent are located more than 200 meters away, coupled with the fact that an establishment with an ‘ON’ license is doing business in the vicinity legally. A further consideration that the presence of a legal Retail Vend would surely curb the illegal sale of liquor in the area, also appears to have been overlooked”.

“…though a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or do business in liquor, the same however, being regulated by the State under the Meghalaya Excise Act and Rules, which places restrictions and limitations on such trade of business, the satisfaction or fulfillment of conditions as prescribed, would surely vest the petitioner with a legal right which cannot be taken away except by due process”, the Bench further said.

Advocate P.T. Sangma appeared for the petitioner and N.D. Chullai, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondents.

The petitioner held a valid IMFL retail license granted in September 2022 and had been operating without complaint at Jengjal market, West Garo Hills. On seeking to shift her shop to Danakgre for reasons of convenience, she obtained an NOC from the local Headman (Nokma) of Danakgre Akhing and formal permission from the Excise Department, and relocated in January 2025. Shortly thereafter, the Superintendent of Excise verbally directed her to close the shop, and she complied, leaving the shop shut for over a year.

On the petition being taken up, the Court, by its order dated December 16, 2025, directed the State to examine the shop's proximity to places of worship or educational institutions and directed the Deputy Commissioner to convene a meeting between the petitioner and the Headman. Pursuant to this, a meeting held on December 19, 2025 recorded that the petitioner had not violated any provision of the Excise Act or Rules.

On the petitioner pointing out that certain relevant material, including reports on the shop's distance from another licensed establishment and on rampant illegal liquor sales in the area, had not been considered, the Court by order dated March 02, 2026 directed the Deputy Commissioner to revisit the matter with inputs from the Excise and Police Departments.

A further meeting held on March 19, 2026, attended by local church and development committee representatives, the Superintendent of Police, and the licensee, recorded that the shop was compliant with the prescribed 200-metre distance norm under Rule 183(2)(a) of the Meghalaya Excise Rules, that local objectors continued to oppose the shop purely on grounds of sentiment, and that illegal "boot-legging" liquor sales were prevalent in the area in the shop's absence. The Court thereafter directed impleadment of the objecting individuals as respondents, who were subsequently added and heard.

The State respondents submitted that the shop fully complied with Rule 183(2)(a) on distance from places of worship, hospitals, and educational institutions, and that since the location did not fall within any Municipality, the public-consultation requirement under Rule 191(i)(a) did not apply, only the objections of owners or occupiers of land under Rule 191(ii)(a) being relevant, which had been satisfied through the Nokma's NOC.

The newly impleaded respondents, representing the local church and development committee, contended that overwhelming local sentiment opposed the shop, citing an informal poll showing 73 persons against and 21 in favour, and relied on Rishan Pariat v. State of Meghalaya& Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 1223 to argue that community sentiment deserved consideration under Rule 191.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and the petitioner was permitted to resume operation of her wine store at the Danakgre location.

Cause Title: Smti Legitha D. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MLHC:607)

Appearances:

Petitioner: P.T. Sangma with J.T. Sangma, Advocates.

Respondent: N.D. Chullai, Additional Advocate General, with R. Colney, Government Advocate, C.C.T. Sangma, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment