ROPAN SAHOO & ANOTHER versus ANANDA KUMAR SHARMA & OTHERS

ROPAN SAHOO & ANOTHER versus ANANDA KUMAR SHARMA & OTHERS

The order granting IMFL licence was in consonance with the proviso to Rule 34(1) of the Orissa Excise Rules, 1965; every authority was aware of the restrictions and recommended relaxation based on special circumstances, and the Minister's endorsement constituted valid relaxation order. Non-mentioning of the Rule in the communication does not amount to absence of a relaxation order.

Parties
Appellant: Ropan Sahoo; Appellant: Mukesh Kumar; Appellant: State of Orissa; Respondent: Ananda Kumar Sharma
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment & Order of High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Wp(c) No. 3913 of 2009
Outcome
appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Grant of IMFL Licences, Relaxation of Excise Rules, Application of Rule 34 of Orissa Excise Rules, Judicial Review of Executive Decisions
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Excise Law Grant of IMFL Licences Relaxation of Excise Rules Application of Rule 34 of Orissa Excise Rules Judicial Review of Executive Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ropan Sahoo

Appellant

Mukesh Kumar

Appellant

State of Orissa

Appellant

Ananda Kumar Sharma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment & Order of High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Wp(c) No. 3913 of 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order relaxing Rule 34(1)(d) and (e) of Orissa Excise Rules was passed by competent authority before granting licence
  2. 2 Whether non-mentioning of Rule in communication amounts to absence of relaxation order
  3. 3 Whether reasons for relaxation must be explicitly recorded by State Government

Ratio Decidendi

The order granting IMFL licence was in consonance with the proviso to Rule 34(1) of the Orissa Excise Rules, 1965; every authority was aware of the restrictions and recommended relaxation based on special circumstances, and the Minister's endorsement constituted valid relaxation order. Non-mentioning of the Rule in the communication does not amount to absence of a relaxation order.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed

Orders

  • Order of High Court set aside; grant of IMFL 'ON' shop licences in favour of appellants restored.
  • Clarified that State Government may invoke power under proviso to Rule 34(1) for future relaxations if so advised.