Compliance with procedural requirements under the Odisha Excise Rules is necessary for the lawful shifting of liquor licenses, and pleadings must be specific to raise valid legal objections.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The petitioner having no nexus and/or connection with the license having granted to the opposite party No.6 has filed the instant writ petition challenging the action of the Excise authorities in permitting the existing license of a liquor vending to another site on the premise that it violates the distance norms as mandated under the relevant Act, Rules and the Guidelines framed by the Government. The entire pleading hovers around the existence of a school, temple and other public institutions for which the distance norms were provided by putting restrictions in granting the license or permitting any license holder to vend the liquor.

2. The petitioner has approached the authorities by raising such objection and filed the instant writ petition as the authorities have kept the said objection in suspended animation and not disposed of the same.

3. Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State submits that the shifting of the license/shop was permitted by the competent authority after due compliance of the provisions of the relevant Act and the Rules and the Guidelines and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner is unsubstantiated and untenable. It is further submitted that previously, the said licensee was operating his IMFL ON Shop at the premises of the petitioner and sought for shifting of the same to another premises which makes the petitioner annoyed and out of such grudge, the above objection is raised.

4. In response to such submissions, Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said licensee was not operating from the premises owned and possessed by the petitioner and, therefore, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is factually incorrect.

5. Be that as it may, we do not intend to delve deep into the above aspect being essentially a question of fact and proceed to decide the matter on the nuances of the legal provisions applicable in this regard.

6. Rule 31 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') provides that before the Government decides to grant license, the Collector shall affix the public notice both in Odia and English in Form-VIII as required under sub- section (1) of Section 20 and Clause (a) of Section 38 by giving fifteen days’ time to receive objections, if any, and shall also proclaim the same in the locality as mandated therein. Rule 32 of the said Rules further postulates that the head of the concerned local body shall cause a copy of the extract sent to it under Clause (a) of Rule 31 to be affixed at the office notice board of the local body which must be put in a conspicuous part of the said building for a period not less than seven days.

7. The aforesaid two provisions have their applicability also in case of permitting the shifting of the license/shop from the existing site to another site. Once the aforesaid exercise is undertaken, the authority is to take a conscious decision as contemplated in the first proviso to Rule 31(a). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 33 of the said Rules creates a complete embargo in entertaining any objection or the suggestion after the lapse of the said period.

8. After drawing the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the aforesaid provisions which creates a bar in entertaining any objection/suggestion, a case is sought to be made out at the Bar that there was no such notice ever published nor affixed in the conspicuous portion of the building of the local body and, therefore, it is a brazen violation of the provisions of the Act.

9. An attention was drawn to the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no such pleading made in the instant writ petition making out a specific case of such nature, the shelter is taken to a portion of the pleadings where it has been averred that the said shifting has been done in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the not