Nirod Kumar Sahoo Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

Nirod Kumar Sahoo Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing before his objection was entertained and a decision taken thereon, and whether its absence offends the basic principle of natural justice. +2 more

Court's answer

The principle of natural justice, though ingrained and infused into the fundamental principle, is not inflexible unless a prejudice is caused.

Ratio / Principle

There is no statutory provision which mandates a personal hearing to be given before the authorities in taking any such decision.

Key takeaways

Since the spot inspection and the inquiry did not reveal the existence of any emergency utility infrastructures near the proposed outlet, the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced.ratio¶27
The authorities, before granting the licence or permission for setting up the retail outlet, had ensured all requisite safety and security measures; accordingly, no grounds warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No. 11484 of 2025 (Order No. 07, dated 19.12.2025; Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Hon'ble Mr Justice Murahari Sri Raman): Writ petition by Nirod Kumar Sahoo challenging the setting up of a retail outlet for sale of petrol and petroleum products, permitted despite no objection from the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat, DISMISSED. The petitioner's objections that emergency utility centres stood near the proposed outlet were negatived by a spot inspection and inquiry, whose report disclosed no school, hospital or designated residential area within a radius of 50 metres. Held: (i) the principle of natural justice, though fundamental, is not inflexible unless prejudice is caused, and no statutory provision mandates a personal hearing before the authorities take such a decision; (ii) absent any emergency utility infrastructure per the inquiry, the petitioner suffered no prejudice; (iii) the authorities had, before granting the licence/permission, ensured all safety and security measures, leaving no grounds warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The interim order passed earlier was vacated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 11484 of 2025

Nirod Kumar Sahoo

…. Petitioner

Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate

-versus-

Union of India and others

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

19.12.2025

1. A disgruntled litigant has come up with the instant writ

petition challenging the setting up of a retail outlet for selling of

petrol and petroleum products despite no objection having given by the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat.

2. After the decision to allot a place for such retail outlet, certain objections came from the petitioner raising an issue that there

are many emergency utility centres situated near to the proposed new

retail outlet, but the authorities did not pay heed to the same.

Page 1 of 3

3. On the basis of such objection filed before the authority, the

spot inspection was directed and an inquiry was conducted in this regard and the inquiry report annexed to the writ petition would reveal that there is no such school, hospital and designated residential area within the radius of 50 metres.

4. According to the petitioner, he should be given a personal hearing before the said objection is entertained and a decision is taken thereupon and having not done so, it offends the basic principle of natural justice. Though the principle of natural justice is ingrained and infused into the fundamental principle, yet it is not inflexible unless a prejudice is caused. There is no statutory provision which mandates personal hearing to be given before the authorities in taking any decision.

5. The objection was made raising an issue that the proposed new retail outlet is within the close proximity of the utility centers, which does not appear to be factually correct by the fact finding authority. The moment the spot inspection and the inquiry do not reveal the existence of any such emergency utility infrastructures, we

do not find that the petitioner can be said to be prejudiced in this

Page 2 of 3

regard. The setting up of the said retail outlet is also to facilitate the inhabitants to have petrol and the petroleum products for running of the vehicles and, in this regard, the statutory norms and the provisions make imperative to take all such measures relating to the safety and the security in the event of any accident or in an emergency situation.

6. Obviously, the authorities, before granting the license or the permission for setting up of the retail outlet, have ensured all such measures to have been taken and, therefore, we do not find any grounds warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order passed earlier is hereby vacated.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S. Behera

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 11:56:41

Page 3 of 3