1. Challenge to High Court's direction requiring pre-deposit of fees as a condition for invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 6(3) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1377
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Simanchala sahu – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Odisha And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [@ SLP (C) No. 13696 of 2021] with Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [@ SLP (C) No. 13668 of 2021]
Decided on : 28-01-2025
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot mandate a pre-deposit of fees as a condition for invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 6(3) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, in the absence of a statutory provision prescribing such a pre-deposit.
Subject
Administrative Law - Excise Law
Act Referred
ODISHA EXCISE ACT: S.6(3), S.49(b)
Headnote
(A) Odisha Excise Act, 2008 - Section 6(3) - Writ petitions against collector's demand for dues - High Court directed petitioners to clear dues prior to revisional treatment which lacked statutory basis. (Para 5)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - The requirement for pre-deposit of fees before invoking revisional jurisdiction is not supported by statutory provision. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged an order from the Collector demanding payment of dues for operating excise shops prior to surrendering the license.
Findings of Court:
The demand for pre-deposit mandated by the High Court was set aside as unjustified.
Issues: Whether a pre-deposit was necessary for invoking the revisional jurisdiction under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled there is no legal requirement for pre-deposit in revisional proceedings, thus protecting petitioners' rights to appeal the decision.
Result: Appeals allowed.
(B) Writ jurisdiction - The requirement for pre-deposit of fees before invoking revisional jurisdiction is not supported by statutory provision. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged an order from the Collector demanding payment of dues for operating excise shops prior to surrendering the license.
Findings of Court:
The demand for pre-deposit mandated by the High Court was set aside as unjustified.
Issues: Whether a pre-deposit was necessary for invoking the revisional jurisdiction under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled there is no legal requirement for pre-deposit in revisional proceedings, thus protecting petitioners' rights to appeal the decision.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends that no statutory mandate for pre-deposit exists for invoking revisional jurisdiction, making the High Court's payment direction unjustified. (Para 5 )
3. The High Court erred in mandating a pre-deposit of fees as a condition for revisional jurisdiction in the absence of a statutory requirement. (Para 4 , 6 )
4. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be made subject to a pre-deposit condition unless such a condition is expressly prescribed by statute. (Para 6 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court's pre-deposit directions set aside; appellants directed to pursue revisional remedy under Section 6(3) of the Act. (Para 7 )
6. Whether a court can impose a pre-deposit condition for invoking revisional jurisdiction in the absence of a statutory mandate?
No, the court held that mandating a pre-deposit as a pre-condition for invoking revisional jurisdiction is not justified if there is no statutory condition prescribing such a pre-deposit. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are against the judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court of Orissa dated 06.04.2021 and 07.04.2021 in W.P.(C) Nos. 13626 and 13624 of 2020 respectively.
3. The High Court while disposing of the writ petitions filed by the appellant(s) against the order of collector demanding payment of certain dues, directed the appellant(s) to approach the revisional authority under Section 6(3) of the ODISHA EXCISE ACT , 2008 (for short, 'the Act'). The relevant portion of the order passed by the High Court is as under:-
"2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj on 20th March, 2020 directing the Petitioner to clear up the entire Government dues in relation to the running of the O.S. Shops in question for the request of surrender of license to be considered in terms of the earlier orders passed by this Court on 10th January, 2020 in W.P. (C) No. 27895, 27900, 27907 and 27913 of 2019.
3. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Opposite Parties-State points out that against the impugned order revision petition is maintainable before the Excise Commissioner in terms of Section 6(1) of the Orissa Excise Act, 2008 ('OE Act') and against that order to the State Government under Section 6(3) thereof:
4. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, submits that since in terms of the proviso to Section 49(b) of the OE Act, the Excise Commissioner himself would have to take a decision on the very issue that is pending before the Collector, viz., the issue of surrender of license subject to terms, no purpose would be served in going before the Excise Commissioner.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the submissions aforementioned, the Court directs that subject to the Petitioner paying, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, within four weeks from today the entire license fee as show in Column 12 and 50% of the utilization fee as shown in Column 13 of the annexure to the order dated 20th March, 2020, his revision petition will be considered by the Principal Secretary to Excise Department, Government of Odisha and the revision petition will be dispose of, not later than 7th June, 2021 with a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the Petitioner, not later than 14th June, 2021.
6. Subject to the Petitioner complying the above directions, no coercive action shall be taken against him till disposal of the revision petition."
4. There were no occasion for the High Court to pass any further order apart from directing the appellant(s) to avail the revisional remedy. However, by the above referred order impugned before us, the High Court directed the appellant(s) to deposit entire license fee and 50% of the utilization fee within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that there is no statutory mandate of pre deposit for invoking the revisional jurisdiction and therefore the direction to the appellant(s) to make payment as indicated in paragraph 5 of the order is not justified.
6. Having considered the matter in detail we are of the opinion that the direction of the High Court to mandating the appellant(s) to deposit 50% of the utilization fee as a pre-condition for invoking the revisional jurisdiction is not justified, as there is no statutory condition prescribing pre-deposit for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction.
7. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 13626 and 13624 of 2020 to the extent as indicated herein above, and direct the appellant(s) to avail the remedy of revision as provided under Section 6(3) of the Act. The Revisional Authority shall take up the matters and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.
