Ranjan Rout Vs State of Odisha

For Petitioner: Mr. Kousik Ananda Guru, Advocate For O.P.Nos.1 to 4: Mr. Debasish Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate For Intervener: Mr. Ramesh Chandra Rout, Advocate Mr. Balaram Nayak, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶12

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T 16^th October, 2025

¶13

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ.

¶14

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing the letter No.675/Ex. Dtd. 08.04.2025 issued by the Collector, Kendrapara revealing that the Self Help Group (SHG) Mahila Committee of

¶15

WPC No.10387 of 2025

¶16

Page 1 of 10

¶17

Chandibaunsamul GP has raised vehement objection demanding for shifting of the IMFL „ON‟ Shop from the existing site on the grounds reflected therein. Interestingly, it is indicated in the said letter that the said Committee has given an ultimatum of one month to the District Administration failing which steps shall be taken by them. Taking into account such objection having filed, the said letter is caused for shifting of the said IMFL „ON‟ shop to another place.

¶18

The challenge is basically founded upon the legal provisions applicable in this regard, more particularly, after the renewal of the license, the objections should not be entertained in the midway in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 33 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017.

¶19

The sum and substance of the pleading proceeds on the assertion that the letter impugned in the instant writ petition issued by the Collector, Kendrapara is founded upon the objections raised by the said SHG Mahila Committee and, therefore, the seminal point involved in the instant writ petition is whether such objection can be entertained subsequent to the grant of license/renewal of license

¶20

by the authority.

¶21

WPC No.10387 of 2025 Page 2 of 10

¶22

The SHG Mahila Committee has sought to intervene in the instant proceedings and an application seeking intervention and/or addition is taken out being I.A. No.10934 of 2025. Several incidents have been narrated therein for running of the said IMFL „ON‟ shop at the existing site and the reason for raising an objection is also adumbrated therein. Since the writ petition has reached the final stage after the exchange of pleadings, we would not venture to permit such intervention but we find that the impugned letter was caused by the Collector, Kendrapara on the basis of the objection raised by the applicants of the said intervening application and, therefore, renders them as proper party. We, therefore, permit the counsel representing the proposed added intervener to address us on the merit of the matter.

¶23

4.1. The attention of the counsel appearing for the intervening parties was drawn to various provisions of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 for the response of the intervening parties on the legality, sustainability and applicability of such objection filed before the Collector, Kendrapara.

¶24

WPC No.10387 of 2025

¶25

Page 3 of 10

¶26

4.2. Learned counsel for the interveners vociferously submitted that because of various issues raised for the existence of the said IMFL „ON‟ shop, his client has come up against the same and raised a valid objection. Therefore, once the authorities have decided to take steps thereupon, it is not open for the petitioner to raise any objection. He further submits that running of the IMFL „ON‟ shop at the existing site would disturb the social aspect and, therefore, the authorities must take into account the same.

¶27

4.3. We appreciate the agony and anguish shown by the intervening parties but the action of the authorities is required to be tested on the anvil of the statutory provisions. The emotions, sympathy or the empathy should not sway in interpreting the statutory provisions or its applicability and if the law appears to be harsh, the same is to be accepted. The aforesaid principles are based upon the legal maxim dura lex, sed lex.

¶28

Let us examine whether the action of the authorities are strictly in conformity with the provisions of law. The Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 is framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 90 read with Section 94 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 and contained the exhaustive provisions, mechanisms and the

¶29

WPC No.10387 of 2025 Page 4 of 10

¶30

procedures in dealing with an application for grant of IMFL „ON‟ shop license. Rule 31 of the said Rules makes it imperative on the authorities to affix the public notice both in Odia and English in Form-VIII as required under sub-section (1) of Section 20 and Section 38 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 for any objection to be filed within fifteen days therefrom. In addition to the same, the authority shall also adopt the process of proclamation within the locality by announcing the same so that none of the persons should remain unaware of a decision to be taken by the said authority in granting the IMFL „ON‟ shop license. Rule 32 of the said Rules, in our opinion, is an additional safeguard to be taken by the authority, where the head of the concerned local body shall also cause a copy of the extract sent to it under clause (a) of Rule 31 to be compulsorily affixed at the office notice board of concerned local body for a period of not less than seven days.

¶31

5.1. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid provisions conveys a manifest intention of the legislature that before the competent authority decides to grant license under the aforesaid provision, the

¶32

WPC No.10387 of 2025

¶33

Page 5 of 10

¶34

objection to be raised from every nook and corner of the locality shall be given credence to and once such objection is filed within the time indicated therein, a conscious decision shall be taken by the authority after adhering the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid provisions inculcate a legislative intent that the villagers or any individual is entitled to raise an objection and to that extent we do not find any infirmity on the part of the authorities to take note of such objections having filed before they proceed to grant license.

¶35

It is beyond cavil of doubt that such provision gets activated even at the time of renewal of the license as the authority is statutorily bound to adhere to such provisions and cannot depart therefrom. However, the obstacles and/or hurdle can be seen after noticing the provisions contained in Rule 33 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 with regard to entertainment of the objections filed subsequent to the period enshrined in the said notice.

¶36

6.1. Rule 33 is reproduced as under:

¶37

“33. Objection to the proposal to be sent to the Collector.

¶38

(1) All objections and suggestions referred to in rule 31 with respect to proposals contained in the list

¶39

WPC No.10387 of 2025 Page 6 of 10

¶40

prepared under rule 30 shall be sent to the Collector within fifteen days from the date of expiry of the period of notice given in Form VIII and in case of cantonment, the Commanding officer shall inform the Collector within the said period whether he consents to the proposals.

¶41

(2) Any objection and suggestion received after the said period shall be summarily rejected.

¶42

(3) The list prepared and recommended by the Collector and submitted to the Excise Commissioner in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 41 shall be submitted before the State Government for approval under section 42.”

¶43

6.2. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 33 postulates that in the event any objection

¶44

or the suggestions are filed within the time contemplated under Rule 31, the same would be sent to the Collector, Kendrapara for its conscious decisions/opinion to the proposal for granting license or renewal of license for IMFL Shop. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 33 which clinches an issue in the instant matter prohibits any suggestions or objections to be entertained after the period provided under Rule 31 has expired. It contained a negative language that any objections or the suggestions beyond the statutory period shall be summarily rejected. Prefixing “summarily” to the word “rejected” has to be given a due regard

¶45

WPC No.10387 of 2025

¶46

Page 7 of 10

¶47

and in common sense it is understood that it would not be shown the light nor should be taken into consideration at the time of giving consent to the proposal by the Collector. It can be reasonably inferred from the aforesaid expressions or the words used in sub-section (2) that a complete prohibition is created in taking into consideration such objection and, therefore, once any action is forbidden by law, it would not be proper on the part of the Court to issue a direction or a writ of mandamus upon the authorities to do a thing contrary thereto.

¶48

The country is governed by the rule of law and it is obligatory on the part of the Court to uphold the law and see that the citizen of the country abides the same. Any action which undermines the authority of the legislature or is directly in contravention to the law is not conducive to a healthy civilized society and a time has come that every citizen must realize their constitutional and/or statutory rights as any transgression or uncontrolled violation of the constitutional or statutory right shall invite a chaotic society. The framers of the Constitution have not only bestowed certain rights fundamentally ingrained and inhered in every citizen of the

¶49

WPC No.10387 of 2025 Page 8 of 10

¶50

country, but such right is also controlled and regulated by established procedure of law.

¶51

7.1. Right to protest peacefully is a fundamental right of a civil society but in the garb of such protest, if the fabric of the public order is disrupted or if the law and order situation is ransacked, the authorities must take steps as provided in the Constitution as well as the statutory laws. There cannot be any deterrent into the authorities in upholding the law and order which is a State subject under List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.

¶52

7.2. The aforesaid observations are made in the instant judgment on the basis of the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the State though having no germane or nexus to the cause of action pleaded in the instant writ petition.

¶53

Reverting back to the merit, we do not find any justification on the part of the Collector in directing the shifting of the shop solely on the basis of an objection filed by the intervening parties after the statutory period provided under Rule 31 has expired and, therefore, the prohibition created under sub-rule (2) of Rule 33 of the

¶54

WPC No.10387 of 2025

¶55

Page 9 of 10

¶56

aforesaid Rules is required to be strictly adhered to and such objection should have been “summarily rejected”.

¶57

In view of the findings made hereinabove, the impugned notice dated 08.04.2025 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to pass appropriate directions or orders in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶58

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶59

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶60

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶61

SK Jena/Secy.

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 19-Oct-2025 13:09:00

¶64

WPC No.10387 of 2025 Page 10 of 10

Ranjan Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Pratap Chandra Samantaray Vs Superintendent, Cgst and Central Excise, Kendrapada Circle

Basanti Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Durga Madhab Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Bidhubhusan Patra Vs State of Odisha

M/S Kirin Technology Private Limited, Bbsr Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes