WP(C)/9961/2026 of T.SRIDEVI PATRA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 28 July 2026

ORDER

28.07.2026

03.

1. Pursuant to the order dated 23rd July, 2026, the Superintendent of Excise, Chatrapur, Ganjam and the Collector, Ganjam are personally present before this Court. Their presence was felt inevitable for the reason that an adjournment was sought on the first day of admission of the instant writ petition on the premise that Mr. Sanjay Rath, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) has not received any instruction from the competent authority, yet the authority proceeded to settle the Out Still shop in favour of a third party.

2. Even the aforesaid facts were not disclosed when the matter was taken up on 23rd July, 2026 by the AGA and an adjournment was sought on the ground of lack of proper instruction from the appropriate authority. Since the petitioners highlighted such issue, this Court directed the aforesaid officials to remain personally present before this Court.

3. Mr. Rath, Learned AGA, at the very outset, submits that though the instruction was received prior to 23rd July, 2026, but because of the bona fide mistake by the employees of the Office of the Advocate General, the same was not attached to the file. The AGA who appeared on the last occasion was in dark, as the said instruction was not included in the file and a prayer for adjournment was sought on such score.

4. He further submits that the authorities cannot be saddled with any responsibility in not providing the instruction as sought for nor should be brought under the purview of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the laches and the lapses of the employees of the AG Office.

5. We have not even an inkling of doubt that mere filing a proceeding in the Court of law does not tantamount to preventing the authorities to act within the precincts of law. If the Court has not prevented or restrained the authorities from doing a thing or forbidding to do a thing, the authorities cannot keep administrative actions in suspended animation for all time to come. Equally, it is true that authorities cannot reap the benefit of their own wrong, more particularly, when an adjournment is sought at one hand and the action prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners is undertaken on the other.

6. It is high time that the authorities must realize that the proceedings in the Court cannot wait eternally on the pretext of lack of proper instruction as it has a remote connection in exploding the docket of the Court. At times, the Court feels that before it embarks its journey on the peripheral of passing the interim order, the stand of the State is inevitable and adjourns the matter so that the proper instruction is received and the version of the State in this regard is made patent to the Court.

7. We do not delve deep into the above aspect as it is the AG Office, who has to ponder upon such issue and take corrective measures to avoid the recurrence of such situation in future.

8. Be that as it may, a third-party interest has already been created in granting the license in the interregnum and, therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition taking into account the above subsequent event occurred during the currency of the instant writ petition.

9. The petitioners have approached this Court assailing the Office order dated 10th March, 2026 passed by the Collector, Ganjam and the demand notices dated 6th February, 2026 and 26th February, 2026 respectively with a further prayer for renewal of the license so that the petitioners may continue in operating the Out Still shop and its branch for the year 2026-27.

10. It is not in dispute that Rule-48 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 provides for grant of license and the proviso appended thereto is indicative of the fact that the duration of the said license shall initially be for a maximum period of three years, subject to the renewal by the Government every year on payment of the fees thereof. It is thus apparent that the renewal is to be made on payment of the fees as may be prescribed and/or notified in this regard and not an unbridled right of renewal. Once the condition is attached to the renewal of the license on a year-to-year basis in the form of payment of the fees, unless the compliance is made, the existing license holder cannot seek the renewal under the aforesaid proviso.

11. It is no gain saying that the State Government took a policy decision, which is commonly known as the Excise Policy operating for a defined period containing exhaustive provisions relating to various aspects of operationalization of the liquor vending shops across the State together with the requisite fees for each incident. The said policy has received the sanction and being applied rigorously in full spirit and, in the event, any violation is noticed, there is no fetter on the part of the authority to take an action. The renewal fees is prescribed therein in tune with the proviso appended to Rule-48 of the said Rules and, in the event, the mode and the manner in which such fees is to be paid for renewal, the same must be adhered to.

12. In the instant case, the petitioners did not pay the full renewal fees and even sought for time to pay the same, which was obliged by the Collector, Ganjam. An undertaking was also given to the authority to pay the remainder of the renewal fees within five days which, in fact, has not honoured. There is no iota piece of paper forthcoming before us that after the period undertook by the petitioners to pay the remainder, any prayer for extension of time was made to the said Collector.

13. There is a complete stubbornness and silence on the part of the petitioners in approaching the authority but a pro-activeness is shown in approaching the Court raising a grievance. Even on the earlier occasion, the writ petition was disposed of directing the collector to take a decision on the application, which in fact has been taken in terms of the said order, which is sought to be challenged by the petitioners in the instant writ petition.

14. By the said order dated 10th March, 2026, the Collector has opined that the license of the Out Still shop is liable for cancellation for non-payment of the arrear license fees. Subsequently, the demand was raised for the period which the petitioners could not utilize for vending the liquor as the license granted to the petitioners which was operative from 7th August, 2025 till 31st March, 2026. In the event, the authorities have granted the license for a broken period of a month, it is incongruous to suggest that such license holder should be saddled with the liability and/or responsibility to pay for the period in which he was neither permitted to operate nor operated for selling the liquor. The authorities cannot charge any amount when the license was not granted to the petitioners but it is within its competence to charge any fees for the period when the license was operative.

15. Even if the licensee has not operated the shop during the currency of the license, it does not absolve him from the responsibility to pay the requisite fees as the Government cannot suffer because of the laches and the lapses of the license holder.

16. Be that as it may, the demand appears to have been raised for the period when there was no existence of any license nor the petitioners were found to operate in violation of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside, which we hereby do.

17. We direct the Superintendent of Excise, Chatrapur, Ganjam to revisit the same and, in the event, any portion of the said claim comes within the folds of the validity of the license, shall make a fresh demand on the petitioner.

18. It goes without saying that any amount for the period when the license was not granted cannot be included in the said demand. It leads us to another aspect as we find the same to be vital and in order to render complete and effective justice, the said aspect needs to be determined.

19. Admittedly, the petitioners neither paid the requisite renewal fees within the time stipulated in the policy nor within the extended period. Once the requisite renewal fees is not deposited, it presupposes that the existing license holder is not inclined to have the license renewed for the subsequent year and, in this regard, there is no fetter on the part of the authority to proceed in granting the license to a third party, subject to any strict adherence of the procedures provided in this regard.

20. Once the renewal is not made in accordance with the statutory Rules or the documents, the authorities cannot keep such amount but have to refund the same treating such action of the existing license holder as disinclination to have the license renewed.

21. In this regard, we further direct the authorities to refund the amount which has been deposited by the petitioners in the garb of the renewal within four weeks from the date of the communication of this order.

22. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

23. Personal appearance of Mr. V.Keerthi Vasan, Collector & DM, Ganjam and Mr. Amarendra Kumar Jena, Superintendent of Excise, Ganjam is dispensed with.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Sisira Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Aug-2026 12:20:23 Signature Not Verified