Disposed¶23

Susanta Kumar Senapati v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Jan 2026WP(C)/2025/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Competence of Tahasildar vis-a-vis Collector under Rule 31, Odisha Excise Rules, 2017; Rule 31(a) violation; public notice and objection procedure under S. 20(1) and S. 38(a), Odisha Excise Act, 2008; IMFL Off Shop licence shifting; Inspector of Excise, Aska Range, Ganjam letter dated 16.12.2025; Tahasildar, Sheragada communication dated 24.12.2025; usurpation/colourable exercise of power struck down by writ Court; portion of order quashed; writ petition disposed; State of Odisha opposite parties.

What did the court decide?

Portion of the Tahasildar, Sheragada's order inviting objections and declaring the proposed site unsuitable for an IMFL OFF Shop quashed and set aside; Inspector of Excise, Aska Range directed to proceed on the basis of the information furnished along with the said decision as permissible in law; writ petition disposed of.

Susanta Kumar Senapati Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahasildar, Sheragada is a competent authority under the provisions of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 to take a decision on the suitability of the proposed site for an IMFL Off Shop, including by inviting public objections.

¶14

Court's answer

Under Rule 31 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017, read with sub-section (1) of Section 20 and Section 38(a) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, the affixation of the public notice (in Odia and English), the 15-day objection window, and the proclamation by beat of drums/public announcement/district website hosting must all be undertaken by the Collector; the power is not vested in the Tahasildar, Sheragada.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

An authority acting without power conferred by law commits usurpation of power, which is always regarded as a colourable exercise of power; consequently there is no impediment or fetter on the writ Court striking down such action.

¶20

Key takeaways

Since the Tahasildar is not a competent authority under Rule 31 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 for inviting objections from the public, the entire exercise of inviting objections by the Tahasildar is blatantly violative of Rule 31(a) of the said Rules.ratio¶20
The portion of the Tahasildar's order by which he invited the objection and took the decision that the proposed site is not suitable for opening of the IMFL OFF Shop is quashed and set aside; the Inspector of Excise, Aska Range is directed to proceed on the basis of the information furnished along with the said decision as permissible in law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.2025 of 2026 (decided 22.01.2026, bench of the Chief Justice (Harish Tandon) and M.S. Raman): The petitioner, holder of an existing IMFL Off Shop licence, sought shifting of his shop; the Inspector of Excise, Aska Range, Ganjam (letter dated 16.12.2025) asked the Tahasildar, Sheragada to verify five land particulars. Instead of replying, the Tahasildar suo motu invited public objections and held the proposed site unsuitable for an IMFL OFF Shop (communication dated 24.12.2025). Holding that under Rule 31 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017, read with sub-section (1) of Section 20 and Section 38(a) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, the public-notice and proclamation exercise vests in the Collector and not the Tahasildar, and that usurpation of power by an authority lacking jurisdiction is a colourable exercise of power open to being struck down by the writ Court, the Court found the Tahasildar's objection-inviting exercise blatantly violative of Rule 31(a), quashed and set aside that portion of his order, and directed the Inspector of Excise, Aska Range to proceed on the basis of the information furnished as permissible in law. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2025 of 2026

¶2

Susanta Kumar Senapati …. Petitioner

¶3

Represented by Adv.– Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate Mr. S.K. Behera, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and Others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties

¶7

Represented by Adv.– Ms. A. Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

22.01.2026

1. The challenge is made to the communication dated 24^th December, 2025 issued by the Tahasildar, Sheragada in the district of Ganjam solely on the premise that the said authority is not a competent authority to take a decision in terms of the provisions contained in the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017.

¶15

Undeniably, the petitioner holds an existing IMFL Off Shop license and subsequently, he applied for shifting of the said shop to another place.

¶16

On the basis of the said application, the Inspector of Excise, Aska Range, Ganjam issued a letter dated 16.12.2025 to the Tahasildar, Sheragada in the district of Ganjam to make an inquiry and verify the ownership of the land with the radial distance of the objectionable site from the proposed land. Five inform a tions were sought in the said letter

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

namely, names of the recorded tenant, names of the boundary tenant, status of the land, kissam of the land and whether the Government land is encroached. Instead of giving reply as indicated in the said letter, the Tahasildar, Sheragada of its own invited the objection and took up the responsibilities of the concerned authority and took a decision that the said proposed site is not suitable for opening of the IMFL OFF Shop.

¶19

Rule 31 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 postulates the affixation of the public notice both in Odia and English in the prescribed form in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 20 and Section 38(a) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 giving 15 days time for receiving objections, if any. In addition to the same, the proclamation shall also be made in the locality by beat of drums or by an announcement in public or by hosting of the notice in the concerned district website. All such exercise is required to be undertaken by the Collector and the power is not vested upon the Tahasildar, Sheragada in the said statutory provisions.

¶20

It is trite law that the authorities cannot do anything unless conferred by law as any action transgressing the boundaries setforth in this regard or in absence of any such power having conferred in the statute, the action is susceptible to be interfered with. The authority cannot use of the power of a statutory authority provided in the statute in taking a decision and disposing of the case. Usurpation of the power by an authority lacking jurisdiction and/or the power is always regarded as a colourable exercise of power and, therefore, there is no impediment or fetter put in the writ Court to strike down the same. Since the Tahasildar is not a competent authority under Rule 31 of the said Rules, 2017 for inviting an objection from public, the entire exercise of inviting an objection by the Tahasildar is blatantly violative of Rule

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

31(a) of the said Rules. The portion of the order by which the Tahasildar has invited the objection and took a decision that the proposed site is not suitable for opening of the IMFL OFF Shop is hereby quashed and set aside. The Inspector of Excise, Aska Range is directed to proceed on the basis of the information which was furnished along with the said decision as permissible in law.

¶23

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶24

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S.K. Jena/Secy.

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 27-Jan-2026 19:09:48

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Susanta Kumar Senapati v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susanta Kumar Senapati 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

Abhinandan Pattnaik Vs the State of Odisha

Rajesh Parida Vs Union of India

Sabita Gouda Vs State of Odisha

M/S Hawkeye, Dhenkanal Vs Commissionr Cgst Central Revenue Building, Bbsr

M/S Montecarlo Limited, Gujarat Vs the Addl Commissioner of State Tax, (Appeal) Central Zone Ii, Cuttack

Kundus Kitchen Equipment Private Limited, Khordha Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhubaneswar IV Circle, Khordha