RAMESH CHANDRA ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the sale notice No. 282 dated 25.3.2003 issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Angul for manufacture and sale of O.S. Liquor in the premises mentioned in the district of Angul in Annexure 2 to the sale notice. The contention of the petitioner is that under the proviso to Sub section (1) of Section 22 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (for short, 'the Act') public notice will have to be given of the intention to grant any exclusive privilege under Sub section (1) of Section 22 inviting objections from persons residing within the area affected and such objections are to be considered by the authorities. The manner in which such public notice is to be given inviting objection has been specified in rule 3 of the Orissa Excise Exclusive Privilege Rules, 1970 and Form A appended to the Sub rule (3) of the Rules, 1970. In this case, no such public notice has been given as provided in the proviso to Sub section (1) of Section 22 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Orissa Excise Exclusive Privilege Rules, 1970 before the impugned sale notice No. 282 dated 25.3.2003.

(2.) FROM the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. parties 1, 2 and 3 and a subsequent affidavit filed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Angul on 20.8.2003 it appears that initially public notice No. 153 dated 5.2.2003 was issued inviting objections but thereafter the said public notice dated 5.3.2003 was cancelled and a revised public notice No. 194 dated 18.2.2003 was issued inviting objections to the proposal to grant exclusive privilege for manufacture and retail sale of Out still liquor on vendors. A copy of the said revised public notice No. 194 dated 18.2.2003 has been annexed to the affidavit of the District Magistrate and Collector, Angul as Annexure B.

(3.) MR . D. Das learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties 1 to 3 and Mr. N. Patra, learned counsel appearing for opp. parties 4 and 5, on the other hand, submitted that in the revised notice No. 194 dated 18.2.2003 inviting objections from the public, not only the local area but also the locality in which exclusive privilege is to be exercised have been indicated. According to Mr. Das and Mr. Patra, at the stage of inviting objections, it is not necessary and also not practically possible to indicate the exact place or premises in the locality in which the exclusive privilege was to operate as at that stage it is not known as to who will be granted the exclusive privilege. Mr. Das, and Mr. Patra, however, submitted that before grant of licence, the authorities would have to ensure that the exact place or premises in which the exclusive privilege operates is not any of the places or premises mentioned in Sub rule (1) of Rule 34 of the Orissa Excise Rules, 1965.