The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.30212 of 2025 Arpita Arundhati …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others Mr. Arun Kumar Patra, Advocate -versus- ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. Sanjay Rath, AGA Mr. Biraja Prasanna Das, Advocate for O.P No.5 CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. 04.
Decision
ORDER 04.12.2025 1. The instant writ petition is at the behest of the petitioner alleging that opposite party no.5 is unauthorizedly operating his Nayabazar Country Spirit (Liquor) Shop at a different place than, for which the license was granted by the approved authority. An approach was made by making an allegation in this regard, but no steps or actions were taken by the authorities which constrained the petitioner to move the instant writ petition. 2. On the day of admission of the instant writ petition, it was felt that the dispute of such nature should be taken up by the authority on a priority basis as a person cannot be allowed to continue reaping the benefit from the illegality. However, the learned counsel appearing for the State sought accommodation to take an appropriate instruction and the matter was adjourned to a subsequent date. On 13th November, 2025, the counsel for the authorities submitted that the authorities have taken the said allegation seriously and have decided to make an inspection at the site disclosed by the writ petitioner, where the said opposite party Page 1 of 4 no.5 is allegedly operating and vending the liquor. Today, when the matter is listed, the instruction received by the learned Additional Government Advocate is placed before us disclosing the stand of the authorities in this regard. The said instruction reveals that a field enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Excise, Rural Range and a report was submitted on 17th November, 2025 revealing that opposite party no.5 is operating and/or selling the Country Liquor from an unapproved site. It is further disclosed that immediately upon detection such irregularities, a notice is issued upon opposite party no.5 in the form of a show-cause seeking reply within a specified time as to why the said shop should not be closed and sealed. 3. The date was fixed for consideration of the show-cause reply to be submitted by the opposite party no.5, but a letter was issued seeking the said proceeding to remain in limbo till the disposal of the instant writ petition. Obviously, the authorities did not proceed as the matter is sub judice before this Court. 4. Recently, this Court experienced that the authorities kept the proceedings initiated in accordance with the statutory provision pending either on the approach made by a party to this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or an appearance has already been made on behalf of the authorities after receiving the copy of the writ petition to keep the said proceeding in abeyance despite the fact that there is no interim order passed in the said proceeding perceiving impediment in continuing with the said proceeding. 5. It is expedient to record that mere filing of a writ petition before the Court or serving a copy of the writ petition cannot be construed Page 2 of 4 to create any brindle into the authorities to stay the further progress of the proceeding initiated in accordance with the statutory provisions, unless the Court passes any specific order in this regard. We hasten to add that the authority should continue with the proceeding irrespective of the fact that a writ petition is filed before the High Court, unless there is any specific order interdicting the progress of the said proceeding or continuance thereof. An unscrupulous litigant may reap the advantage of a situation in moving the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and keeping the said matter at the admission stage and at times such writ petitions are not listed for months. Keeping the proceeding in suspended animation as a writ petition is pending before this Court has a ramification as the legal right of the person shall get affected and the justice remained delayed. 6. This is one of the classic examples where a party to the writ proceeding approached the authority on the date fixed for filing of the reply or consideration thereof to postpone the date or extend the date for filing the reply as the instant writ petition is pending before this Court. It is nothing but an attempt to procrastinate the litigation and, therefore, the direction as above, is felt inevitable and requires due implementation by the authorities across the State. 7. Reverting to the instant case, the moment the proceeding has already been initiated on a prima facie proof of operating and selling the Country Liquor from an unapproved site, the authorities must bring such proceeding to its logical conclusion. A show-cause notice has already been issued upon opposite party no.5 and the reply to the show-cause has already been submitted, but the hearing could not be concluded nor a final decision could be taken because Page 3 of 4 of the instant writ petition having pending in this Court, we, therefore, direct the authorities to bring the said proceeding to its logical end by following the procedures provided in the statute or the Rules made thereunder. 8. Since the main grievance of the writ petitioner has already been attended and/or redressed by the authorities in initiating a proceeding, this writ petition is disposed of in the light of the observation made hereinabove. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 9. Registry is directed to communicate the said order to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Odisha for necessary action. The learned Advocate General, Government of Odisha, is also directed to communicate this order to the Departments of the State of Odisha. MRS/Laxmikant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Dec-2025 18:44:41 (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Page 4 of 4