Orissa High Court
Ranjan Rout vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10387 of 2025
Ranjan Rout .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Mr. Kousik Ananda Guru, Advocate
For O.P.Nos.1 to 4: Mr. Debasish Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate
For Intervener: Mr. Ramesh Chandra Rout, Advocate
Mr. Balaram Nayak, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
16th October, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing the letter
No.675/Ex. Dtd. 08.04.2025 issued by the Collector, Kendrapara
revealing that the Self Help Group (SHG) Mahila Committee of
Chandibaunsamul GP has raised vehement objection demanding
for shifting of the IMFL „ON‟ Shop from the existing site on the
grounds reflected therein. Interestingly, it is indicated in the said
letter that the said Committee has given an ultimatum of one
month to the District Administration failing which steps shall be
taken by them. Taking into account such objection having filed,
the said letter is caused for shifting of the said IMFL „ON‟ shop to
another place.
2. The challenge is basically founded upon the legal provisions
applicable in this regard, more particularly, after the renewal of the
license, the objections should not be entertained in the midway in
terms of the provisions contained in Rule 33 of the Odisha Excise
Rules, 2017.
3. The sum and substance of the pleading proceeds on the assertion
that the letter impugned in the instant writ petition issued by the
Collector, Kendrapara is founded upon the objections raised by the
said SHG Mahila Committee and, therefore, the seminal point
involved in the instant writ petition is whether such objection can
be entertained subsequent to the grant of license/renewal of license
by the authority.
4. The SHG Mahila Committee has sought to intervene in the instant
proceedings and an application seeking intervention and/or
addition is taken out being I.A. No.10934 of 2025. Several
incidents have been narrated therein for running of the said IMFL
„ON‟ shop at the existing site and the reason for raising an
objection is also adumbrated therein. Since the writ petition has
reached the final stage after the exchange of pleadings, we would
not venture to permit such intervention but we find that the
impugned letter was caused by the Collector, Kendrapara on the
basis of the objection raised by the applicants of the said
intervening application and, therefore, renders them as proper
party. We, therefore, permit the counsel representing the proposed
added intervener to address us on the merit of the matter.
4.1. The attention of the counsel appearing for the intervening parties
was drawn to various provisions of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017
for the response of the intervening parties on the legality,
sustainability and applicability of such objection filed before the
Collector, Kendrapara.
4.2. Learned counsel for the interveners vociferously submitted that
because of various issues raised for the existence of the said IMFL
„ON‟ shop, his client has come up against the same and raised a
valid objection. Therefore, once the authorities have decided to
take steps thereupon, it is not open for the petitioner to raise any
objection. He further submits that running of the IMFL „ON‟ shop
at the existing site would disturb the social aspect and, therefore,
the authorities must take into account the same.
4.3. We appreciate the agony and anguish shown by the intervening
parties but the action of the authorities is required to be tested on
the anvil of the statutory provisions. The emotions, sympathy or
the empathy should not sway in interpreting the statutory
provisions or its applicability and if the law appears to be harsh,
the same is to be accepted. The aforesaid principles are based upon
the legal maxim dura lex, sed lex.
5. Let us examine whether the action of the authorities are strictly in
conformity with the provisions of law. The Odisha Excise Rules,
2017 is framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section
90 read with Section 94 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 and
contained the exhaustive provisions, mechanisms and the
procedures in dealing with an application for grant of IMFL „ON‟
shop license. Rule 31 of the said Rules makes it imperative on the
authorities to affix the public notice both in Odia and English in
Form-VIII as required under sub-section (1) of Section 20 and
Section 38 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Odisha Excise
Rules, 2017 for any objection to be filed within fifteen days
therefrom. In addition to the same, the authority shall also adopt
the process of proclamation within the locality by announcing the
same so that none of the persons should remain unaware of a
decision to be taken by the said authority in granting the IMFL
„ON‟ shop license. Rule 32 of the said Rules, in our opinion, is an
additional safeguard to be taken by the authority, where the head
of the concerned local body shall also cause a copy of the extract
sent to it under clause (a) of Rule 31 to be compulsorily affixed at
the office notice board of concerned local body for a period of not
less than seven days.
5.1. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid provisions conveys a
manifest intention of the legislature that before the competent
authority decides to grant license under the aforesaid provision, the
objection to be raised from every nook and corner of the locality
shall be given credence to and once such objection is filed within
the time indicated therein, a conscious decision shall be taken by
the authority after adhering the principles of natural justice. The
aforesaid provisions inculcate a legislative intent that the villagers
or any individual is entitled to raise an objection and to that extent
we do not find any infirmity on the part of the authorities to take
note of such objections having filed before they proceed to grant
license.
6. It is beyond cavil of doubt that such provision gets activated even
at the time of renewal of the license as the authority is statutorily
bound to adhere to such provisions and cannot depart therefrom.
However, the obstacles and/or hurdle can be seen after noticing the
provisions contained in Rule 33 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017
with regard to entertainment of the objections filed subsequent to
the period enshrined in the said notice.
6.1. Rule 33 is reproduced as under:
"33. Objection to the proposal to be sent to the
Collector.
(1) All objections and suggestions referred to in
rule 31 with respect to proposals contained in the list
prepared under rule 30 shall be sent to the Collector
within fifteen days from the date of expiry of the
period of notice given in Form VIII and in case of
cantonment, the Commanding officer shall inform
the Collector within the said period whether he
consents to the proposals.
(2) Any objection and suggestion received after
the said period shall be summarily rejected.
(3) The list prepared and recommended by the
Collector and submitted to the Excise Commissioner
in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 41
shall be submitted before the State Government for
approval under section 42."
6.2. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 33 postulates that in the event any objection
or the suggestions are filed within the time contemplated under
Rule 31, the same would be sent to the Collector, Kendrapara for
its conscious decisions/opinion to the proposal for granting license
or renewal of license for IMFL Shop. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 33
which clinches an issue in the instant matter prohibits any
suggestions or objections to be entertained after the period
provided under Rule 31 has expired. It contained a negative
language that any objections or the suggestions beyond the
statutory period shall be summarily rejected. Prefixing
"summarily" to the word "rejected" has to be given a due regard
and in common sense it is understood that it would not be shown
the light nor should be taken into consideration at the time of
giving consent to the proposal by the Collector. It can be
reasonably inferred from the aforesaid expressions or the words
used in sub-section (2) that a complete prohibition is created in
taking into consideration such objection and, therefore, once any
action is forbidden by law, it would not be proper on the part of the
Court to issue a direction or a writ of mandamus upon the
authorities to do a thing contrary thereto.
7. The country is governed by the rule of law and it is obligatory on
the part of the Court to uphold the law and see that the citizen of
the country abides the same. Any action which undermines the
authority of the legislature or is directly in contravention to the law
is not conducive to a healthy civilized society and a time has come
that every citizen must realize their constitutional and/or statutory
rights as any transgression or uncontrolled violation of the
constitutional or statutory right shall invite a chaotic society. The
framers of the Constitution have not only bestowed certain rights
fundamentally ingrained and inhered in every citizen of the
country, but such right is also controlled and regulated by
established procedure of law.
7.1. Right to protest peacefully is a fundamental right of a civil society
but in the garb of such protest, if the fabric of the public order is
disrupted or if the law and order situation is ransacked, the
authorities must take steps as provided in the Constitution as well
as the statutory laws. There cannot be any deterrent into the
authorities in upholding the law and order which is a State subject
under List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
7.2. The aforesaid observations are made in the instant judgment on the
basis of the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the
State though having no germane or nexus to the cause of action
pleaded in the instant writ petition.
8. Reverting back to the merit, we do not find any justification on the
part of the Collector in directing the shifting of the shop solely on
the basis of an objection filed by the intervening parties after the
statutory period provided under Rule 31 has expired and, therefore,
the prohibition created under sub-rule (2) of Rule 33 of the
aforesaid Rules is required to be strictly adhered to and such
objection should have been "summarily rejected".
9. In view of the findings made hereinabove, the impugned notice
dated 08.04.2025 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby
quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to pass
appropriate directions or orders in the light of the observations
made hereinabove.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
SK Jena/Secy.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
