[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Satya Sankar Samantaray vs The Principal Secretary on 11 December, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 33555 of 2025
Satya Sankar Samantaray .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Principal Secretary, Department of .... Opposite Parties
Excise, Govt. of Odisha and others
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Satyajeet Mukharjee, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Debashis Tripathy,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Dec-2025 16:45:08
