Ritarani Samantara Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ritarani Samantara Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Government order dated 24.04.2025 quashed and set aside; opposite party No.1 directed to reconsider the petitioner's ON shop licence application afresh, in light of the Court's observations, within three months from communication of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Government's rejection of the petitioner's ON shop licence application, while directing reassessment of a similarly circumstanced applicant's application, is discriminatory and offends Article-14 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

Once parity of facts places two applicants on the same pedestal, it is inconceivable for the Government to direct reassessment in one case and reject the other application in toto; the differential treatment is apparent discrimination offending the core value of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

Equality amongst equals must be adhered to: when the Court finds two or more individuals standing on the same footing, the law does not permit a different view for each of them; decisions must percolate uniformity, and equal treatment is the hallmark of the Constitutional provisions.

Key takeaways

Solely on the ground that the Government's act is discriminatory, the order dated 24th April, 2025 is quashed and set aside; opposite party No.1 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh in light of the Court's observations and bring the issue to its logical end within three months from communication of the order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ON shop licence – New Beer Parlour 'D.N. Restaurant' – rejection under Rule-26, Odisha Excise Rules, 2017, citing two educational institutions at 300 m and 100 m, while a similarly circumstanced applicant ('Sahu Hotel' IMFL Restaurant ON shop, with educational institutions at 300, 200 and 250 m) was directed to be reassessed – held: once parity of facts exists, the Government cannot direct reassessment in one case and reject the other in toto; differential treatment is apparent discrimination offending Article-14, Constitution of India; equality amongst equals requires uniformity of decision – Government order dated 24.04.2025 quashed and set aside solely on the ground of discrimination; opposite party No.1 directed to reconsider the application afresh within three months – Writ Petition disposed of (Bench: Harish Tandon, CJ and M.S. Raman, J; order dated 16.07.2025).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15131 of 2025

Ritarani Samantara

…. Petitioner

Mr.Suraj Mohanty, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and others

Opposite Parties

Mr.Saswat Das, Addl. Government Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER

16.07.2025

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The application for grant of ON shop license for New Beer Parlour in the name “D.N. Restaurant” at the behest of the petitioner was rejected by the Government on the ground coming within the ambit of Rule-26 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017. On the other hand, the application of a similarly circumstanced person for online ON shop was directed by the Government to be reassessed.

3. The act of discrimination is eminently present and evident from the facts discerned from the record. The application of the petitioner was rejected as it comes within the ambit of Rule-26 of the said Rules for the reason that there are two educational institutions situated at the distance of 300 metres and 100 meters respectively. On the other hand, the application of one IMFL Restaurant ON shop in the name and style “Sahu Hotel” is directed by the Government for reassessment, despite the fact that three educational institutions exist at the distance of 300, 200 and 250

Page 1 of 3

metres respectively. One of the educational institutions, which is reported at a distance of 180 metres, is found to have been situated within a distance of 250 metres in case of the other applicant. In all reasonability, so far as the distance norms contemplated under Rule-26 of the said Rules is concerned it is applicable in both the cases. If the Government did not find it fit to relax the distance norms under the aforesaid provision, it cannot take a different view in an identical situation. Equal treatment is the hallmark of the Constitutional provisions and the citizen of the country cannot be discriminated by the Government, Semi-Government or the authority. Equality amongst the equals is to be adhered to and the moment the Court finds that two or more individual stand on same footing, the law does not permit to take a different view for each of those persons but must percolate a sense of uniformity in taking a decision.

4. We are conscious that the equality principles applies in case of equal persons and not un-equal persons, but the moment we find the parity of facts, which makes two persons to stand upon the same pedestal, it is inconceivable that the Government will direct the reassessment of the application in one case and reject the other application in toto . It is an apparent example of the discrimination perpetrated by the authority upon the petitioner, and, therefore offends the core value of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.

5. We, therefore, solely on the ground that the act of the Government is discriminatory, the order of the Government dated 24^th April, 2025 communicated by the Deputy Secretary to Government is hereby quashed and set aside.

6. The opposite party No.1 is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner afresh in the light of the

Page 2 of 3

observations made hereinabove and all efforts should be done to bring the issue to its logical end, within three months from the date of communication of this order.

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

Bichi

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 21-Jul-2025 11:08:05

Page 3 of 3