Dismissed¶25

Shibasis Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Nov 2025WP(C)/21530/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P. (C) No. 21530 of 2025; decided 19.11.2025 by R.K. Pattanaik, J. (single judge); Shibasis Tripathy v. State of Odisha and others; renewal of hotel license agreement (Annexure-1, issued 2015) refused owing to serious default in license fee payment (deposit of Rs. 50,000/- on 09.02.2021 against dues of Rs. 1,26,000/-; dues of Rs. 1,72,000/- payable till July, 2025); site earmarked for bus stand construction; writ petition dismissed; interim order dated 12.08.2025 in I.A. No. 12790 of 2025 vacated; counsel: A.P. Bose for petitioner, P.K. Sahoo ASC for State, A. Mohanta for O.P. No.4.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and, as a consequence, the interim order dated 12th August, 2025 in I.A. No. 12790 of 2025 was vacated. ¶25

Shibasis Tripathy Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and, as a consequence, the interim order dated 12th August, 2025 in I.A. No. 12790 of 2025 was vacated.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 can be directed to renew the license agreement (Annexure-1) and restrained from disturbing the petitioner's physical possession, the petitioner claiming there is no default in payment of license fees nor violation of terms and conditions.

¶17

Court's answer

On account of the petitioner's serious default in making payments, renewal of the license cannot be directed.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The counter affidavit reveals the site is earmarked for construction of a bus stand and a decision has been taken to utilise the space for that purpose; in any case, no case is made out for renewal and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 cannot be directed to renew the agreement (Annexure-1), especially on account of the petitioner's default.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. (C) No. 21530 of 2025 — Shibasis Tripathy v. State of Odisha and others (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, R.K. Pattanaik, J., order dated 19.11.2025): The petitioner, a license holder running a hotel since 2015 with trade license and food safety license (Annexure-2 series), sought a direction to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to renew the license agreement (Annexure-1) and not to disturb his physical possession, contending there was no default in payment of license fees. Per the counter affidavit of O.P. No.4, the petitioner was to pay a license fee of Rs.2,000/-, deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 9th February, 2021 against outstanding dues of Rs. 1,26,000/-, and the dues had risen to Rs. 1,72,000/- payable till July, 2025. The Court held that, on account of the petitioner's serious default, renewal of the license could not be directed; further, the site was earmarked for construction of a bus stand and no case for renewal was made out. The writ petition was dismissed and the interim order dated 12th August, 2025 in I.A. No. 12790 of 2025 was vacated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No.21530 of 2025

¶3

Shibasis Tripathy …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

¶9

Mr. A.Mohanta, Advocate for O.P.No.4

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

19.11.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanta, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 besides Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

¶17

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner to direct opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to renew the agreement i.e. Annexure-1 and not to disturb his physical possession as there is no default in payment of license fees nor any violation of the terms and conditions thereof.

¶18

Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a license holder to run a hotel and is having trade license and food safety license issued to him and refers to Annexure-2 series. It is also submitted that the

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

petitioner had made the deposits as required in terms of the license, hence, therefore, opposite party No.4 should be directed to renew the same without taking any coercive action. Mr. Mohanta, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 refers to the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner is a defaulter and there can be no renewal of license in his favour. As per the affidavit, according to Mr. Mohanta, learned counsel, the petitioner was to make payment of license fee of Rs.2,000/- and deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 9^th February, 2021 as against the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,26,000/- and it has become Rs.1,72,000/- payable till July, 2025 and therefore, no case is made out for renewal, hence, the writ petition should be dismissed.

¶21

Considering the submissions as above and having regard to the fact that petitioner defaulted in making the payments and in the meantime, a decision has been taken to utilize the space for construction of a bus stand, notwithstanding the fact that such a license was issued in 2015, the Court is of the view that on account of the serious default by him, renewal of the license is not to be directed. Furthermore, the counter affidavit reveals that the site is earmarked for construction of a bus stand. In any case, having regard to the submission of Mr. Mohanta, learned counsel for opposite party No.4, the Court reaches at a conclusion that opposite party Nos.2 to 4, under the above circumstances, cannot be directed to renew the agreement i.e. Annexure-1 as

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

no case is made out and especially on account of the default of the petitioner.

¶24

5. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a consequence, the interim order dated 12^th August, 2025 in I.A. No. 12790 of 2025 is hereby vacated as a result.

¶26