WP(C)/19898/2026 of M/S PRADEEP MULTIPLEX PVT. LTD., CUTTACK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 15 July 2026

ORDER

15.07.2026

03.

1. Taking advantage of a mistake having committed by the authority, the petitioner has come up with the assertion that the stand of the authorities in not renewing the license for a complete financial year is unjustified, unfair and illegal.

2. The aforesaid impression is created in the mind of the petitioner solely on the premise that the petitioner deposited the application fees for renewal in terms of the new excise policy, which was earmarked on yearly basis. In other words, it is sought to be contended that once the fees earmarked for entire year has been accepted by the authority, it augments deemed renewal for the whole financial year and, therefore, the action of the authority in restricting the period to 31st July, 2026 is contrary to their own stand and also the provisions of the law. Additionally, a plea is taken that once the license is issued in the month of August, 2021 for a period of five years, the expiring period of the said license should be in the month of August and not prior thereto.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Rath, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing for the opposite parties- State submits that Rule 23 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 exposits that in the event, any license is granted in the midst of the financial year, such license shall be valid up to the next financial year, i.e., 31st March and not beyond that. He further submits that since the Government took time to adopt a new excise policy, it extended the period of license subject to the fulfillment of other conditions as enshrined therein and, in fact, the existing license has been extended till 31st July, 2026.

4. On the conspectus of the aforesaid stand, the first and foremost point involved in the instant writ petition is whether the period of license is to be computed from the date of the issuance thereof or till 31st March of the year in which it shall expire in normal sense.

5. The word and/or expression "year" has been defined in Rule 2(zj) of the said Rules to mean the Financial Year. Though the financial year is not expressly defined in the said Rules, the ascertainment can be made from various provisions of the said Rules, including Rule 23 thereof. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 ordains that in the event the license is granted any time after 1st April, the validity period would be counted till 31st March of the next following year.

6. It can be reasonably gathered from the above provision that the license runs from 1st April of a year till 31st March of the next following year and, in the event, any license is granted in the interregnum, it will be deemed to have been granted till 31st March of the next year and not beyond that. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that since the license was granted on 28th August, 2021, its validity has to be counted from the date of the issuance of the license and not till the next financial year, i.e., 31st March is incorrect and not in consonance with the said provision.

7. It is open to the Government to adopt a policy provided it runs in consonance with the spirit of the statutory provisions and not in derogation thereof. Previously, the liquor licenses were issued across the State on the basis of the then Excise Policy adopted by the Government and, subsequently, a new policy has been adopted, which is admittedly in vogue.

8. Since the implementation could not be ensured immediately after the expiration of 31st March, 2026, a conscious decision was taken by the Government to extend the period of the license subject to the compliance of certain conditions initially for a period of two months, which is extended till 31st July, 2026. It is sought to be contended that once the license is allowed to continue beyond the original period, it invites an automatic renewal of the said license, which does not appear to hold water as the Government has decided to extend the said license, which cannot be perceived akin to renewal thereof.

9. There is an apparent distinction between renewal and extension, as the former invites concept of a fresh license to be issued, whereas in latter case, it is stretching or prolonging further the period or a thing existed on the said date. Once the Government has decided to extend the license, it is preposterous to suggest that the same could be treated synonymous to the renewal and/or vice versa.

10. We appreciate the contention of the petitioner that while extending the benefit of an extension in terms of various circulars, the concerned Department has compelled the petitioner to deposit the fees earmarked for the entire year. The State or its instrumentality cannot charge any amount beyond the period for which the validity of the license is extended as the charging of fees has a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

11. The object of extension is to implement the new policy with all rigor and force and till such exercise is undertaken, the existing license holder may be permitted to continue to sell liquor (country or foreign) and for that the charging of fees for the entire year is inappropriate, improper and not in consonance with the liquor policy.

12. At this juncture, Mr. Rath, learned AGA submits that the Government has taken a conscious decision that the fees would be charged on monthly proportionate basis and any excess amount paid by any of the license holder would be refunded accordingly.

13. In view of such stand, we direct the opposite parties to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioner in terms of the new

policy within 15 days from the date of implementation of the new policy.

14. With these observations and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

Sisira Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jul-2026 12:09:39 Signature Not Verified