The High Court
Case Details
// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 14724 of 2018 M/s. Choudhury Medical Store …. Petitioner(s) Mr. A.K. Choudhury, Adv. State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 14.08.2025 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer: ‚The petitioner- Medicine Store, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application and issue Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus appropriate writ/writs, other direction/directions, order/orders shall not be passed directing the opposite parties :- any or (i) To quash the Letters dated 27.07.2018 & 04.08.2018 of the Director, VIMSAR, Burla (O.P. No.6) directing to vacate the petitioner-Medicine Store, failing which the same would be demolished by 15.08.2018, as the same is violative of Articles- 14, 16, 19(1)(g) & Article-21 of the Constitution of India, and the Director (O.P.28 No.6) has Page 1 of 5 // 2 // no jurisdiction & authority under the Resolution issued by the Government of Odisha, in Health & Family Welfare Department from time to time and furthermore, the Opp. Parties have already accepted the license fees till the year 2022 for continuance of the petitioner’s Medical Store inside ‘the VIMSAR, Burla and furthermore, the action of the (1) Director suffers from discriminatory in nature, full of mala fide/ vindictiveness with oblique motive. (ii) And to pass such other order/orders which would afford complete relief to the petitioner-Medicine Store in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view the interest of general public at large and has infringed the right to livelihood/right to trade and business guaranteed under Articles- 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India.‛ 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 19.04.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.5136 of 2015 (Mahavir Medicine Store, Rairakhol vrs. State of Odisha and Ors.) and batch of Writ Petitions. Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Mahavir Medicine Store (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the State submit that he has no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Mahavir Medicine Store (supra). 6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of Mahavir Medicine Store (supra), it appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the said judgment Page 2 of 5 // 3 // which was disposed of on 19.04.2024. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows: ideally rooted “18. State policies, in deontological principles, often tend to adopt a utilitarian approach in practice. This entails prioritizing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. However, Courts play a crucial role in maintaining a delicate balance in this regard. While policies aim to maximize overall societal benefit, it is imperative that the rights and well-being of parties at peril are safeguarded. 19. This Court acknowledges the importance of state policies aimed at enhancing public welfare, particularly those concerning healthcare, as addressed in this case. These policies are crafted to address societal needs and enhance the overall well-being of citizens. Despite this acknowledgment, the judiciary also upholds the protection of individual rights enshrined in constitutional principles, is including equality, incumbent upon the judiciary to safeguard these rights even within the context of state welfare initiatives. 20. Therefore, striking a balance between supporting state welfare policies and safeguarding individual rights presents a significant challenge for the judiciary. While supporting state welfare policies, the judiciary must strive to minimize the damage to parties adversely affected by these policies. 21. The free medicinal care policy by the state marks a monumental step forward in prioritizing public health and welfare. By providing essential healthcare services and medications at no cost to citizens, this policy demonstrates a commitment to ensuring access to healthcare for all, regardless of socioeconomic status. It not only addresses immediate healthcare needs but also contributes to long- liberty, and due process. It Page 3 of 5 // 4 // term benefits such as improved health outcomes, reduced healthcare disparities, and enhanced overall quality of life for the population. Additionally, such a policy aligns with principles of social justice and equity, promoting the fundamental right to healthcare for all individuals. 22. In the current scenario, although the involved parties are at a disadvantage, their plight is outweighed by the broader objective of welfarism. While the petitioners may face challenges, their situation does not pose a threat to their constitutional rights. 23. Therefore, in light of the discussion above, keeping the settled principles of law in mind and for the reasons given above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order warrants no interference. 24. Resultantly, the challenge in the aforesaid Writ Petitions must fail and the same are dismissed. The CONTCs are also dropped being dismissed. All pending IAs stand disposed of on the abovementioned terms. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the aforementioned Writ Petitions stands vacated. No order as to costs.‛ 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the judgment dated 19.04.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.5136 of 2025 and batch of Writ Petitions, keeping the settled principles of law in mind and for the reasons given in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned letter warrants no interference. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 8. Resultantly, the challenge in this Writ Petition must fail and the same is dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Sisir Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 18-Aug-2025 17:23:21 Page 5 of 5