Orissa High Court
The Castle Inn vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 9 May, 2023
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, M.S. Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 13524 of 2023
The Castle Inn, Bhubaneswar ..... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Rath, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. B.P. Rath, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
09.05.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
02.
2. Mr. B.P. Rath, learned counsel states that he has got instructions to appear on behalf of opposite party no.5 and, therefore, he seeks six weeks time to file counter affidavit.
3. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that the order impugned dated 12.04.2023 in Annexure-1, with regard to renewal of license for the year 2023- 24, has been passed by the Superintendent of Excise, Bhubaneswar, who is not competent to do so, in view of Section 26 of the Orissa Excise Act. It is contended that either District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to declare closure of the shop. Since the order with regard to closure of the shop has been passed by the Superintendent of Excise, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and, as such, the same has been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. Apart from the same, it is contended that clause-16 of the partnership deed, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, provides for dissolution of partnership deed and that should be read with Section 40 of the Partnership Act. But the same has not been done in the present case. As a consequence thereof, one sister has applied for renewal of license and another is Page 1 of 2 seeking for surrender of license. Peculiarly, both the sisters are partners and because of inter se dispute between them now the shop has been closed. It is further contended that the Excise Superintendent has entered into the controversy between the two sisters and is playing to the gallery, as a consequence thereof, the shop has been closed.
4. Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that the allegation made against the Superintendent of Excise is not correct. It is contended that since one sister has asked for renewal and another for surrender of license and due to inter se dispute between the two sisters, the shop has been closed and, as such, the Superintendent of Excise has not passed any order under Annexure-1 for closure of the shop, rather due to non-grant of renewal of license the shop has been closed as per law.
5. As prayed for by learned counsel for the parties, list this matter after six weeks. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed in the meantime.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Ashok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE ASHOK Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR KUMAR JAGADEB JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Date: 2023.05.10 MOHAPATRA 17:23:10 +05'30' Page 2 of 2