The High Court directed the State to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the retagging of excise retailers and inform the result within three weeks. The petition was disposed of with this direction.
Direction to consider representation and inform result within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 16441 of 2024
Lalit Kumar Behera
..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv.Mr. A. K. Patra, Advocate Mr. B. Shadangi, Advocate -versus-
State of Orissa & others
..... Opp. Parties Represented by Adv.Mr. S. Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
AND
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
and submits, his client was served with impugned letter dated 27th 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 1st April, 2024.
Page 1 of 3
2. He relies on communication dated 27th 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.
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.
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.
5. We think fit to direct opposite party no.2 to consider and deal with representation dated 6th April, 2024 under annexure-3 and inform petitioner result thereof within three weeks from date of communication.
Page 2 of 3
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge
(M.S. Sahoo) Judge
dutta
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 11-Nov-2024 20:03:02
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the retagging of excise retailers to a distant depot warrants interference for parity and convenience?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanak Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha and othersReferred¶19
W.P.(C) no.16332 of 2024 (Kanak Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha and others)
Lalit Kumar Behera
State of Orissa & others
Arindam Sinha
M.S. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
