AYUSH SAHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is one of the classic examples where the authority, who is vested with the powers to pass an order in terms of the statutory rules, has mechanically passed an order taking shelter on a ground not contemplated in the rules. Admittedly, the petitioner is a licensed vendor to sell the liquor from the site duly approved by the authorities. An incident happened at the village when two persons died and it was perceived that such death occurs because of the spurious liquor consumed by them having brought from the shop of the petitioner. There appears to be a public commotion as the demonstrations and/or agitations were launched in front of the shop of the petitioner and in order to bring a public peace, an order was passed by the Collector on 17/6/2025 under Sec. 26(1) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 for temporary closure of the shop.

(2.) It admits no ambiguity that Sec. 26 of the said Act empowers the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate to issue a notice in writing to the licensee to close the shop at such time or for such period for the purpose of preservation of the public peace. The said provision contained in Sec. 26 is quoted as under:

(3.) It is manifest from the proviso appended to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 26 of the said Act that in the event the closure of the shop is perceived to continue beyond three days period, the approval of the Excise Commissioner is required to be taken in this regard. There is no quarrel to the understanding of the said provision and its applicability that such emergent power is vested upon the Collector to immediately close down the shop in which the intoxicant is sold, temporarily in order to maintain public peace but the period of such temporary closure shall not exceed beyond three days. In the event the same is required to remain closed exceeding the said period of three days, a permission and/or approval is required from the higher authority, which in fact, was adhered to and the shop of the petitioner was permitted to remain closed for a period of 35 days. Since a serious allegation was made when two persons of the village died, the law relating thereto was activated including the inquiry being made on the stocks available in the said shop and even the samples were taken for forensic examination whether it contains any substance, which is hazardous to health and may be a cause for the death. The report does not reveal that the liquor contains any such obnoxious and/or hazardous substance, which may cause the death so also the report of the post-mortem that the death was not due to consumption of the spurious liquor but of a chronic disease which the aforesaid two persons were suffering since long.