Disposed

Bharat Prusty v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC8 Nov 2024WP(C)/15913/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Excise retailer challenged retagging from Nirgundi depot to newly opened Chhatabar depot at Cuttack, citing parity with a licensee reverted to Nirgundi and convenience. The Division Bench directed the authority to consider the petitioner's representation and inform him of the result within three weeks, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Opposite party no.2 directed to consider representation dated 30 March 2024 and inform petitioner of result within three weeks.

Bharat Prusty Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.15913 of 2024

¶3

Bharat Prusty

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Adv.Mr. A. K. Patra, Advocate Mr. B. Shadangi, Advocate -versus-

¶6

State of Orissa & others

¶7

..... Opp. Parties Represented by Adv.Mr. S. Nayak, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶10

AND

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

ORDER

08.11.2024

Order No.

03. 1. Mr. Patra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

¶16

and submits, his client was served with impugned letter dated 27^th June, 2024 saying that the Excise Commissioner had been pleased to accord permission for retagging all excise retailers of, inter alia, Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) area with newly opened depot at Chhatabar with effect from 1^st April, 2024.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

2. He relies on communication dated 27^th June, 2024 made by the Joint Excise Commissioner (Policy) to Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack in according permission to a Cuttack retailer to continue to remain tagged for lifting stock from Nirgundi depot. He submits, Nirgundi depot is much nearer to Cuttack than the depot at Chhatabar. He seeks interference for appropriate direction.

¶19

3. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. He submits, petitioner had made representation. There be direction for consideration thereon. He then refers to counter filed in W.P.(C) no.16332 of 2024 (Kanak Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha and others) to submit, new depot at Chhatabar has been established as earlier depot at Nirgundi had lack of storage capacity.

¶20

4. It may be that for administrative reason there was retagging but subsequently a licensee obtained order of reversion, back to Nirgundi depot. Petitioner is urging parity on convenience.

¶21

5. We think fit to direct opposite party no.2 to consider and deal with representation dated 30^th March, 2024 under Annexure-3 and inform petitioner result thereof within three weeks from date of communication.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶25

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶26

dutta

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 11-Nov-2024 20:03:02

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Bharat Prusty v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Prusty v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Rout Vs Puspita Rout

Pramod Kumar Rout Vs Puspita Rout

Baban Das Vs State of Odisha

Alekh Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Biswajit Swain Vs State of Orissa

Lalit Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha