The court ruled that the rejection of a liquor license application based on arbitrary policy distinctions lacks reasonable grounding and does not adequately consider public interest.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.

1. The writ petition was moved before us on 29^th October, 2024. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner had submitted, impugned is order dated 29^th April, 2024 made by the Principal Secretary to Government, Excise Department rejecting his client’s application for issue of licence to operate ‘ON’ shop in his restaurant at Nayagarh town. This is his client’s third writ petition.

2. Drawing attention to page-6 of impugned order he submitted, it is bereft of reason. Alluding to State policy, apparently in contradiction with rule 51 in Odisha Excise Rules, 2017, does not qualify as a reason. He seeks interference.

3. We had recorded our prima facie appreciation in order dated 29^th October, 2024, made upon the petition moved. Paragraphs-4 to 6 from said order are reproduced below.

“4. On perusal of impugned order we appreciate three contentions made therein. First is, no applicant for liquor licence has a vested right to have his application considered. We disregard this contention because we find that petitioner’s application was considered.

5. Second contention is, application of petitioner is without lodging category, which violates clause of the excise policy on ‘ON’ shop licence being granted for only star hotels and other hotels having minimum number of rooms to be decided by the Excise Department. A policy mandate requiring only hotels as can apply for ‘ON’ shop licence, barring standalone restaurants, is a contention that needs demonstration as on existing policy, in line with the rules.

6. The third contention is one which this Court takes exception to. The authority being of considered opinion that earlier set aside decision of the Government was just and proper is not in order. The contention is rejected. The rejection is because earlier orders passed by this Court were not made subject matter of challenge by the authority.”

4. On 10^th December, 2024 Mr. Patra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicant-intervener had moved the application. He has represented his client in the hearing of the writ petition since then. His client holds licence to run an ‘OFF’ shop. The application is allowed to add applicant as opposite party no.6 in the writ petition. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of another applicant-intervener. He submits, his client is the bus owner association. They object to licence being granted to petitioner for running ‘ON’ shop. His client is also added as opposite party no.7. Petitioner has liberty to make the amendments to cause title, to be countersigned by Court Master. Consolidated cause title be filed and circulated. The applications are disposed of.

5. We reproduce below paragraphs-2 and 3 from our later order dated 10^th December, 2024.

“2. Mr. Dash, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, he is ready with answer in respect of paragraph-5 in our earlier order dated 29^th October, 2024. He submits, the answer was given by coordinate Bench on judgment dated 27th March, 2024 in a batch writ petitions, lead case being W.P.(C) No.19873 of 2023 ( The Lotus Restaurant, Ganjam v. State of Odisha ). He relies on paragraph 8.13, reproduced below.

“In the wake of aforesaid observations and having regard to the fact that the restriction contained in Clause 4.2.3(I) of the Excise Policy, 2023-24 being in the larger public interest, the decision taken by the State Government cannot be faulted with. In such view of the matte