IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32360 of 2025 Niranjan Mohanty and others …. Petitioners Represented by Adv.–

Mr. Subhransu Bhusan Mohanty, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.–

Ms. A. Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel (State)

CORAM:

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No. 02.12.2025

01. 1. The issue which was already set at rest after compliance of the statutory provisions is sought to be resurrected at the behest of the interested persons, who intended to settle their score by raising an objection to construct and run an IMFL OFF shop at the site approved by the competent authority.

2. Undeniably, the license holder applied for shifting of the IMFL OFF Shop from the existing site to a proposed site, which was processed under the provisions of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017. After the approval was granted and the steps having taken to shift the IMFL OFF shop to a proposed site, the objections were raised from various persons including the petitioners that the said IMFL OFF Shop license should not be granted at the proposed site as it falls within the distance norms as provided. The said objection was raised to the Commissioner of Excise, who directed the authority, the Collector, Jagatsinghpur to consider the same and pass an appropriate order. The Collector vide an order dated 01.05.2025 disposed of the said objection with the categorical finding that the allegation as to distance norm to be strictly adhered to does not appear to have been substantiated.

3. The petitioners have come up with the PIL raising an issue that Rule 53 of the said Rules mandates the approval of the Collector and since the approval has not been granted, the order for shifting the IMFL OFF shop is contrary to the said provisions. Though feebly it is sought to be contended by counsel for the petitioners that the schools and the hospitals are situated in a close proximity of the site and the petitioners are not opposing to the shifting of the IMFL OFF shop but raised objections for running the said shop at the proposed site. The objection raised by the petitioners does not appear to hold water for the simple reason that the impugned decision is taken by the Collector on 01.05.2025 discarding the contention of the objectors that in the proximity of the proposed site Balikuda Govt. U.P. School or Urdu U.P. School or a petrol pump is situated within the stipulated distance provided in the notification/circular and/or Rules framed in this regard. The Collector has vividly recorded the distance of all such establishments from the proposed site which appears to be beyond the stipulated distance. There is no prescribed mode of approval by the Collector in the said Excise Rules. Once the Collector has taken a conscious decision and rejected the objection raised, it tantamounts to an implied approval. The moment the objection is raised that certain public establishments are within the distance of the proposed site and the Collector found the same to be incorrect, it tantamounts to grant of approval. Even apart, we find from the record that the Collector was consulted before the decision was taken to permit the shifting of the IMFL OFF shop, which would be apparent from the information sheet annexed to the instant writ petition and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any infraction of the provisions contained in Rule 53 of the said Rules. Apart from the same, we find that before the decision to permit the shifting of the IMFL OFF Shop license, the objection was invited and the concerned Grama Panchayat issued No Objection or in other words, did not raise any objection. Even if, Rules 32 and 33 of the said Rules are applied in case of grant of license but if the same is resorted to even in case of shifting of the existing shop to another place, subsequent objection is impermissible and no credence should have been given by the competent authority. Be that as