Facts
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the permission or licence granted for an IMFL retail off shop, alleging that it was close to a temple, schools and other public institutions and contravened the Odisha Excise Act and Rules.
Source reference: paras. 1–2, p. 1–2The petitioner’s objection to the authorities was made after the licence had been granted and the shop had opened.
Source reference: paras. 1–2, p. 1–2The High Court considered whether that late objection could be entertained under the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017.
Source reference: paras. 3–9, pp. 2–5Issues
Whether an objection to a proposed IMFL retail shop, made after the objection period prescribed under Rules 31 and 32 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017, may be entertained by the authorities
Source reference: paras. 7–9, pp. 4–5Whether the Court could direct the authorities by mandamus to consider the petitioner’s late objection or act on it to cancel the licence
Source reference: paras. 11–12, p. 6Law Applied
Sections 90 and 94 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 empower the State Government to make rules concerning excise matters.
Source reference: para. 3, p. 2Under Rules 31 and 32 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017, the Collector must give public notice and provide the prescribed opportunity for objections and suggestions before a retail liquor licence is granted; Rule 33(1) requires those objections and suggestions to be sent within the prescribed period, and Rule 33(2) provides that any received after that period “shall be summarily rejected”.
Source reference: paras. 4–9, pp. 3–5A writ of mandamus cannot require a statutory authority to act contrary to, or in breach of, the governing law.
Source reference: para. 11, p. 6Reasoning
The Court treated Rules 31 and 32 as prescribing the process by which local residents are notified and may object before a licence is granted, and Rule 33 as governing the submission and treatment of those objections.
Source reference: paras. 4–7, pp. 3–4Because the petitioner objected only after the licensing process had concluded and the shop had opened, the objection fell outside the period contemplated by Rule 33 and was therefore not entertainable under Rule 33(2).
Source reference: paras. 2, 9, 12, pp. 2, 5–6The Court accordingly held that it could not direct the authorities to act on that objection contrary to the Rule.
Source reference: para. 11, p. 6Holding
The High Court held that the petitioner’s post-licensing objection was liable to be summarily rejected under Rule 33(2), and that the PIL was misconceived.
It dismissed the writ petition.
Source reference: paras. 12–13, p. 6Acts & Sections Cited
6 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Odisha Excise Act, 20086
Original Court PDF
TRIGUNATEETA DEBvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
