The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 33555 of 2025 Satya Sankar Samantaray …. Petitioner The Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Govt. of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties -Versus- Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Satyajeet Mukharjee, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and Judgment: 11th December, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. The petitioner having no nexus and/or connection with the license having granted to the opposite party No.6 has filed the instant writ petition challenging the action of the Excise authorities in permitting the existing license of a liquor vending to another site on the premise that it violates the distance norms as mandated W.P.(C) No.33555 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 under the relevant Act, Rules and the Guidelines framed by the Government. The entire pleading hovers around the existence of a school, temple and other public institutions for which the distance norms were provided by putting restrictions in granting the license or permitting any license holder to vend the liquor. 2. The petitioner has approached the authorities by raising such objection and filed the instant writ petition as the authorities have kept the said objection in suspended animation and not
Decision
disposed of the same. 3. Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State submits that the shifting of the license/shop was permitted by the competent authority after due compliance of the provisions of the relevant Act and the Rules and the Guidelines and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner is unsubstantiated and untenable. It is further submitted that previously, the said licensee was operating his IMFL ON Shop at the premises of the petitioner and sought for shifting of the same to another premises which makes the petitioner annoyed and out of such grudge, the above objection is raised. W.P.(C) No.33555 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 4. In response to such submissions, Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said licensee was not operating from the premises owned and possessed by the petitioner and, therefore, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is factually incorrect. 5. Be that as it may, we do not intend to delve deep into the above aspect being essentially a question of fact and proceed to decide the matter on the nuances of the legal provisions applicable in this regard. 6. Rule 31 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') provides that before the Government decides to grant license, the Collector shall affix the public notice both in Odia and English in Form-VIII as required under sub- section (1) of Section 20 and Clause (a) of Section 38 by giving fifteen days’ time to receive objections, if any, and shall also proclaim the same in the locality as mandated therein. Rule 32 of the said Rules further postulates that the head of the concerned local body shall cause a copy of the extract sent to it under Clause (a) of Rule 31 to be affixed at the office notice board of the local W.P.(C) No.33555 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 body which must be put in a conspicuous part of the said building for a period not less than seven days. 7. The aforesaid two provisions have their applicability also in case of permitting the shifting of the license/shop from the existing site to another site. Once the aforesaid exercise is undertaken, the authority is to take a conscious decision as contemplated in the first proviso to Rule 31(a). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 33 of the said Rules creates a complete embargo in entertaining any objection or the suggestion after the lapse of the said period. 8. After drawing the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the aforesaid provisions which creates a bar in entertaining any objection/suggestion, a case is sought to be made out at the Bar that there was no such notice ever published nor affixed in the conspicuous portion of the building of the local body and, therefore, it is a brazen violation of the provisions of the Act. 9. An attention was drawn to the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no such pleading made in the instant writ petition making out a specific case of such nature, the shelter is W.P.(C) No.33555 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 taken to a portion of the pleadings where it has been averred that the said shifting has been done in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the notifications/guidelines and, therefore, the Court must construe all such objections to have been engulfed into the said averments. 10. We are afraid, whether such stand can be accepted. The importance of pleading in an adversarial adjudicatory process is well-known and a litigant approaching the Court must succinctly, lucidly and explicitly adumbrate the facts which are material and constitute the cause of action. The inference or deduction from the omnibus sentence to cover all the facts is untenable as the adversary may not be in a position to deal with the case which the petitioner would infer from such omnibus statement. The adversary must be made aware of the allegations and the case made out by the petitioner. Opportunity is to be given to the said litigant to deal with such factual aspect as the law presupposes any fact having not expressly and/or specifically denied to be deemed to have been admitted by the other side. 11. In order to eradicate such situation, the procedural law provides the pleading of the facts with clarity, so that the other side W.P.(C) No.33555 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 may not be put to surprise nor shall suffer the consequences as permissible in law. It would be suffice to say that unless there is a specific pleading which had a clear and direct nexus to the cause of action is pleaded, it would be incongruous to suggest that the inference can be drawn from an omnibus statement that the aforesaid facts were specifically pleaded. 12. Reverting back to the case, admittedly, in absence of any pleading of a nature that it violates Rules 31 and 32 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017, a logical inference can be drawn to the effect that the authorities have rigorously and strictly complied all such provisions before granting the license at the new site. It can further reasonably be presumed that the objection, if there be any, raised after the affixation and/or publication of the notice has been considered under Rule 31 or in the event there is no objection put forth from any corner, if the authorities proceed to grant the license, it cannot be said that the authorities were unaware of the rigour of the legal provisions; rather the authorities have acted in tune with the relevant statutory provisions. 13. The moment the authorities proceeded to grant the license, a complete embargo is created under sub-rule (2) of Rule 33 of the W.P.(C) No.33555 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 said Rules that any objection subsequent thereto shall be liable to be summarily rejected. Undeniably, the objection/representation filed by the petitioner is after the license is granted or at least not within the time stipulated in the said provision and, therefore, Rule 33(2) of the said Rules creates a brindle in entertaining the said objection. 14. A submission was advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that once an approach is made to the authorities by making representation, such authorities must be directed to take a conscious decision thereon which, in our opinion, should not be readily granted. Directing the representation to be considered without application of mind by the Court, at times, resurrects stale claim and gives a fresh lease of life to the litigations. It simply enhances and/or augments the litigation as the deadwood has already been resuscitated by virtue of a subsequent decision taken by the authorities on the basis of such representation filed by unscrupulous litigants. The Court must apply its mind before directing the authorities to take a conscious decision on a grievance raised in the representation and should not in a routine W.P.(C) No.33555 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 manner directing consideration of the representation as it is innocuous and/or formal in nature. 15. From whatever angle we look at, do not find any substance in the stand of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Dec-2025 16:45:08 W.P.(C) No.33555 of 2025 Page 8 of 8