Disposed

Dibyakanta Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Sept 2020WP(C)/20049/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a letter directing shop renewal subject to shifting premises. The Court held an alternative appeal remedy existed under Excise Rules. It disposed of the writ, directed the petitioner to appeal to the Commissioner, and extended an interim order allowing shop operations at the current location until the appeal concludes.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Rule 251 of the Orissa Excise Rules, 2007 before the Commissioner by fifteen days; the Commissioner to dispose within thirty days. Interim order allowin

Dibyakanta Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.20049 of 2020

¶2

15.09.2020 Heard Mr. A.K. Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties by Video Conferencing mode.

¶3

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitionerDibyakanta Panigrahi, E.P. Holder of Laxmannath IMFL ‘OFF’ Shop, assailing the letter under Annexure-7 dated 13.07.2020 issued by opposite party no.4-Superintendent of Excise, Balasore by order of opposite party no.3-Collector, Balasore to the petitioner.

¶4

3. Relevant portion of the impugned letter under

¶5

Annexure-7 dated 13.07.2020 reads as under:

¶6

“xxx xxx xxx xxx Sub: - Compliance of orders passed by Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.13218 of 2020 on dt.01.07.2020.

¶7

This is to intimate that in compliance to the orders passed by Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in above W.P.(C) and the contents of the representation dt.13.03.2020, Collector, Balasore has been pleased to pass order for renewal of license for the remaining period of 2020-21 subject to shifting of the shop to an unobjectionable site in continuance to this office letter No.1485/Ex. Dt.10.08.2017 and in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha passed on dt.16.07.2019 in W.P.(C) No.16932 of 2017 and order passed on dt.01.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No.13218 of 2020.

¶8

You are therefore directed to take steps for renewal of the license of the shop for 2020-21 as per Excise Policy along with shifting of shop to unobjectionable place at the earliest possible.

¶9

xxx xxx xxx xxx”

¶10

-2-

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to order of this Court dated 01.07.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.13218 of 2020, the Competent Authority has passed the order for renewal of licence for the remaining period of 2020-21 vide the impugned letter but with a rider that the petitioner shall have to shift his shop to an unobjectionable site in continuance to the earlier order dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure-4) passed by the order of Collector, Balasore. The opposite party in the impugned order has wrongly observed that the order of shifting was being passed in compliance of order of this Hon’ble Court. It is further contended that there being no objection from public pursuant to the public notice dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure6), the rider mentioned in the impugned letter regarding shifting of the shop in question to an un-objectionable site is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

¶12

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the Stateopposite parties submits that the reference to the order of this Court was made in the impugned order only in so far as the renewal of licence was concerned. The order regarding shifting of the shop in question had already been passed by the Collector, Balasore earlier on 24.01.2020 which is appealable before the

¶13

-3-

¶14

Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, Cuttack under Rule 251 of the Orissa Excise Rules, 2007.

¶15

6. Having regard to the aforesaid submission advanced by learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, Cuttack against the impugned order of the Collector, Balasore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to examine the correctness of the direction of the opposite party-authority regarding shifting of the shop in question vide the impugned notice, however, requires the petitioner to approach opposite party no.2-Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, Cuttack by way of an appeal under Rule 251 of the Orissa Excise Rules, 2007 against the impugned order within a period of fifteen days hence. If any such appeal is filed, opposite party no.2-Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, Cuttack shall decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned order within a period of thirty days from the date of filing of such appeal.

¶16

Interim order dated 31.08.2020, passed in this case requiring the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to run the IMFL OFF shop existing location, shall continue till termination of the date of disposal of the appeal.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

-4-

¶19

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel 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.

¶20

SKG/MP

¶21

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶22

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice (Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

Dibyakanta Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dibyakanta Panigrahi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda Vs Collector and the District Magistrate, Cuttack

Kishore Chandra Pal Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj Dept.

Sriram Sahoo Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj Dept.

Sisir Vs Mahanadi Coal Fields

M/S.Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Rishabh Rath Vs Icici Bank Ltd., Khurda