Disposed

Arabinda Senapati v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Aug 2020WP(C)/13514/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking a license for an IMFL ON shop, the High Court held the matter was not infructuous. The court directed the Principal Secretary to decide on the license application for the 2020-21 year within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Principal Secretary, Excise Department, to take a final decision on the petitioner's application within 15 days.

Arabinda Senapati Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 13514 of 2020

¶2

18.08.2020 Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties by Video Conferencing mode.

¶3

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Arabinda Senapati with the prayer that the opposite parties be directed to grant IMFL ‘ON’ Shop to him within a stipulated period. 3. The facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner is operating a restaurant in the name and style of “Shree Restaurant” over Plot No.415, Khata No.273, Mouza-Edabansh, G.P. Talada, P.S. Astaranga, Dist-Puri. With an intention to open the said IMFL ‘ON’ Shop, the petitioner submitted an application under Annexure-1 before the Government authorities for grant of license. The Superintendent of Excise (opposite party No.4) on 24.12.2019 directed the Range Inspector of Excise, Puri to conduct inquiry. The Superintendent of Excise has further issued a letter to the Tahasildar, Astaranga on the same day requesting him to enquire into the status of the land over which the petitioner has applied for license. In turn, the Tahasildar in its reply dated 02.01.2020 submitted a report before the Superintendent of Excise, Puri giving details about status of the land. The Inspector of Excise during his inspection at the proposed location found the aforesaid restaurant to be functioning. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the Inspector of Excise under Annexure-4. 4. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to application of the petitioner for grant of IMFL ‘ON’ Shop license, necessary inquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Excise, Sadar Range, Puri. The Inspector of Excise, Bhubaneswar on 08.01.2020 submitted a feasibility report stating therein that the proposed location was free from all objections

¶4

-2-

¶5

under Rule 26 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017. The whole inquiry report was forwarded to the Superintendent of Excise, Puri for consequential orders. Thereafter, the matter was submitted to the Collector, Puri. After compliance of all formalities, notice dated 24.01.2020 was published inviting objections from public. Pursuant to the said notice, some local people submitted their “No Objection” but at the same time, another group of people objected the opening of IMFL ‘ON’ Shop at Talda Gram Panchayat.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after receiving objections from the local public, the Superintendent of Excise, Puri issued letter dated 10.02.2020 to the Range Inspector of Excise, Puri directing to conduct detailed inquiry on the objections. Accordingly, the Inspector of Excise, Puri conducted inquiry on all the objections and issued letter dated 19.02.2020 to the Superintendent of Excise, Puri stating that the proposed IMFL ‘ON’ shop does not violate Rule 26 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017. The Collector, Puri submitted the whole matter to the Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, who in turn referred the matter to the Government recommending the proposal in favour of the petitioner for grant of license. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that despite all such favourable decision, grant of licence is still pending.

¶7

Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties submits that the petitioner had applied for license for the year 2019-20, which in the meantime has already expired. Therefore, the matter has become infructuous.

¶8

In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the application of the petitioner has been recommended from stage to state. If the license would have been

¶9

-3-

¶10

timely granted, the petitioner would have been entitled to renewal of the same.

¶11

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to hold that the writ petition has become infructuous. In any case, the opposite party No.1-Principal Secretary to Government, Excise Department is yet to take a view on the application of the petitioner including on the question whether license for IMFL ‘ON’ shop should be granted or not to the petitioner for the year 2020-21 instead of 2019-20.

¶12

Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition directing the opposite party No.1-Principal Secretary, Excise Department to take a final decision on the application of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a copy of this order before him.

¶13

As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶14

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶15

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶16

SKJ

Arabinda Senapati v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arabinda Senapati v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishore Kumar Sarangi Vs Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

M/S.Ores Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs P.Ravi Kiran,Presiding Officer

Rashabihari Tiria Vs State of Odisha

Pradeep Kumar Sahu Vs District and Sessions Judge, Angul

Kasiram Kathar Vs State of Odisha

Rambilas Sagaria Vs State of Odisha