TRIGUNATEETA DEB vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
WP(C)/31530/2026
ODHC010718222026
2026:OHC:219-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 31530 of 2026
CNR No.ODHC010718222026
Trigunateeta Deb …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pradhan, Advocate
For Opposite Parties-State : Mr. Debashis Tripathy,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE
AND
HON’BLE M R JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
J U D G M E N T
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 15 October, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is taken out after
the settlement of the IMFL retail off shop for granting permission
and/or license at a designated place. The objection and/or challenge
is made that the said IMFL retail off shop is within the close
Page 1 of 6
W.P.(C) No.31530 of 2026
proximity of the temple, the schools and other public institutions. It
is sought to be contended that it is completely in contravention to the
provisions of the Odisha Excise Act as well as the Rules made
thereunder and, therefore, the authorities ought to have taken a
serious note of such objection and to cancel the license and/or
permission granted to the opposite party No.8.
2. Our attention is drawn to the objection filed by the
petitioner with the authorities bearing a date much after the license
was granted and/or the said IMFL off shop was opened. We feel it
prudent to recapitulate the provisions of law applicable in this
regard.
3. Sections 90 and 94 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008
empower the State Government to frame rule relating to the
incidences and/or conditions imposed therein. Pursuant to the said
rulemaking power, the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 is promulgated
th
with effect from 10 March, 2017. It encompasses exhaustive
provisions, not only relating to the procedures to be adopted by the
authorities in granting the license and/or permission to set up the
IMFL retail shops but also the mannerism in which it is so
conducted.
Page 2 of 6
W.P.(C) No.31530 of 2026
4.
Part II of the said Rules contains exhaustive provisions
relating to the ascertainment of local opinion prior to grant of
licenses or exclusive privilege for retail sale of liquor or tari or
bhang . Rule 31 thereof creates a mandatory obligation on the
Collector to affix a public notice, both in Odia and English in a
prescribed form in terms of Section 20(1) and Clause (a) of Section
38, giving fifteen time for receiving objection, if any. It
(15) days’
further provides for the proclamation by beating of drums in the
locality and/or using the broadcast equipments like microphones for
announcement. Rule 32 of the said Rules encompasses that a copy of
the said notice inviting objection shall also be affixed at the office
notice board of the local body for a period not less than seven (7)
days.
5. The conjoint reading of the languages used in the aforesaid
Rules is an authoritative requirement upon the Collector before it
embarks the journey on the peripheral of granting a license or setting
up of a retail shop within a particular area. The extensive procedures
are provided for letting the people of the locality to know that the
Government has proposed to set up the retail liquor shop in the
Page 3 of 6
W.P.(C) No.31530 of 2026
locality and by way of extra precautionary measure, Rule 32 ordains
affixation of the notice on the notice board of local body.
6. In our opinion, both the provisions complement each other
having a laudable object and leaving no stone unturned with regard
to the knowledge having percolated into the people of the locality.
These provisions further ensure the hearing to be given to the people
of the said locality, who would either be benefited or affected by
establishment of a liquor shop within their locality.
7. Rule 33 is a standalone provision operates after the
requirements under Rules 31 and 32 of the said Rules are exhausted.
It is a protective provision that once the entire procedure is strictly
adhered to, it should foreclose the doors for all and sundry and no
objection or the suggestion would be entertained subsequent thereto.
8. It is apposite to reproduce Rule 33 of the Odisha Excise
Rules, 2017, which runs thus:
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
Page 4 of 6
W.P.(C) No.31530 of 2026
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. ”
9. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 33 clearly postulates that any objection
or suggestion after the expiration of the period indicated in the said
notice under Rules 31 and 32 is exhausted. No further objection or
suggestion shall be entertained. It mandates the authorities that in the
event any suggestion or objection is filed subsequent to the same, it
ought not to remain or occupy the space of the administrative
jurisdiction but should be summarily rejected.
10. In the expression “ summarily rejected ” , the word 'rejected'
connotes that no such objection should find a place in the file but
should be shown an appropriate space. The moment the expression
“ summarily rejected ” is used in the said statutory provision, it
denotes simple rejection or non-entertainability of the said objection,
even prevented to make a bare look thereupon.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.(C) No.31530 of 2026
11.
It is a cardinal principle of law that the writ Court should
not issue a writ of mandamus upon the statutory authorities to do a
thing which is either contrary to law or forbidden in law. No Court
can direct the authorities to act in contravention to law or depart
therefrom. The authorities must travel within the circumference of
the statutory provisions and shall not be permitted to transgress such
boundaries nor is a litigant entitled to have the writ of mandamus to
be issued upon the authorities to do so.
12. The instant Public Interest Litigation is of such nature
where admittedly the objection is taken out after the entire exercise
as provided in the said Rules 31 and 32 and, therefore, the same is
liable to be summarily rejected in view of the provisions contained
under Rule 33 (2) of the said Rules.
13. The instant writ petition filed in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation is completely misconceived and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Sisira
Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 6
W.P.(C) No.31530 of 2026
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Oct-2026 12:53:51