Orissa High Court
M/S. Choudhury Medical Store vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi
// 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.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 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 or any other appropriate writ/writs,
direction/directions, order/orders shall not be passed
directing the opposite parties :-
(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:
"18. State policies, ideally rooted 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,
including equality, liberty, and due process. It is
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-
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.
// 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.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sisir
