The authority cannot mandate the shifting of an operational licensee's business based on objections raised after the statutory period, as such orders lack jurisdiction and must be supported with reasons.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The instant writ petition is taken out by an existing IMFL “OFF” Shop licensee assailing the order/notice dated 5th June, 2025 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Jagatsinghpur communicating the order of the Collector, Jagatsinghpur dated 3rd June, 2025 for shifting the said IMFL OFF Shop from the existing place to an unobjectionable site within two months in the interest of public.

2. The petitioner took a specific stand that the said IMFL OFF Shop is operating at the existing site since last four decades by different licensees and the petitioner was granted license by the competent authority in the previous year which has also been renewed for the current year meaning thereby, the said license is valid till 31st March, 2026.

2.1. In the midst of the currency of the license, the aforesaid letter is issued to the petitioner which impedes the continuance of the business activities, for which such license is granted to the petitioner, without taking recourse to the provisions of law applicable in this regard.

2.2. It is a specific stand of the petitioner that the IMFL OFF Shop which is operating for such a long period cannot be directed to be shifted to another unobjectionable site as an objection is received from the locality, that it is situated within the close proximity of the public health centre, temple, educational institutions, etc., causing inconvenience to the patients and other passerby of the said locality.

3. Because of such stand having taken, we invited the attention of Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) appearing on behalf of the State in this regard and permitted her to disclose the stand in the form of an affidavit which, in fact, has been filed in the instant case.

3.1. It is contended in the said counter affidavit that the said IMFL OFF Shop is operating for a pretty long time, but the order was passed by the Collector perceiving its close proximity to the public health centre, temple and educational institutions, etc. The Collector invoked the said power deriving it from Rule 53 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 (in short, „the Rules‟). It is further disclosed in the said affidavit that though said shop has been functioning at the existing site over four decades but public nuisance was being felt and, therefore, the order was passed by the Collector to shift the said shop from the existing site to another site.

3.2. Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew our attention to Rule 33 of the Rules for the proposition that the objection made by the locality/villagers can only be entertained at the time of either granting a new license or at the time of renewal of such license, but not after the license has already been granted or renewed. He further submits that the Collector does not enjoin any power to direct shifting of the shop which is operating since last four decades, merely because an objection is received from the locality/villagers after the notified date. He arduously submits that the plea of nuisance does not invite shifting of the shop as the power to be exercised by the competent authority should be restricted to Section 26 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 (in short „the Act‟) and, therefore, any direction/order passed in departure from the powers conferred upon the authority is illegal and liable to be interfered with under the power of the judicial review. Lastly, he submits that the authority cannot pass direction/order not conferred by the statute and if any such direction/order is passed, the same is regarded as colourable exerci