B. Bisweswara Rao v. State of Odisha & Ors.

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 16.04.2026

A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing for the State-opposite parties that the instant writ petition has virtually become infructuous for the reason that the amount so demanded by the authority, being the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition, was subsequently deposited by the petitioner without any demur and/or protest.

The authority imposed the penalty as the petitioner was allegedly selling foreign liquor, over and above, the MRP fixed in this regard. Though the petitioner has taken a defence that the extra amount relates to other goods not the foreign liquor, but the authority did not find such stand as satisfactory and proceeded to impose the penalty.

Admittedly, at the time of the challenge to the said demand, the petitioner did not pay the said penalty amount and was contending that the authorities cannot quantify any amount on account of penalty beyond the limits set forth in Sections 64 and 68 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008.

Undeniably, the petitioner deposited the entire amount during the pendency of the instant writ petition. A plea is sought to be taken that since a due remained on the petitioner, the authorities were contemplating not to renew the license and, therefore, the petitioner had no option or the choice but to deposit the said amount. The plea of acquiescence is well-recognized in Indian legal parlance. If a person is aware of his own right and if he abandons or acquiesces such right, the said doctrine stares at the face and creates impunity in retracting therefrom.

The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason, though the payment is to be made through electronic mode, which has a prescribed format without any scope of making any remarks thereupon, yet the authorities must be communicated simultaneously with the payment of the same that such payment is on protest and does not destroy the right of the petitioner agitated in the pending litigation. If the payments are made without prejudice to the rights and is made known at the time of making the same, there is no impediment in law in adjudicating the issue and the plea of acquiescence may not apply in that sense.

In the instant case, the petitioner neither raised any objection nor made the payment under protest or without prejudice to his rights and contentions and after such payment is made in the manner as indicated hereinabove, we find that the petitioner cannot take a rebound and continue to agitate the said point.

The writ petition in the above sense becomes infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. Judge Sisira (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman)