Case Law Details
Gopinath Sahu Vs Amar Kumar Mohanty (Orissa High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the Government of Orissa in its Department of Excise can insist on furnishing Bank Guarantee, instead of Solvency certificate, for grant or renewal of Excise Licenses in respect of liquor?
High Court states that if the Government were to suitably amend the Rules now, in so far as the present batch of petitions is concerned, such amendment cannot completely omit the provision of producing the Solvency certificate and require the production of the Bank Guarantee. Even if such provision is brought in the Rules by way of amendment, it shall obviously be applicable only prospectively and not retrospectively. Even a policy decision taken by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India would be subservient to the recruitment rules framed by the State either in terms of a legislative act or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A purported policy decision issued by way of an executive instruction cannot override the statute or statutory rules far less the constitutional provisions. In view of the foregoing discussion, all the writ petitions deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Interim orders passed in all the writ petitions directing the authorities to renew the licenses of the petitioners on production of the Solvency certificate, subject to fulfillment of other conditions are made absolute. Such order shall also obtain in all other writ petitions.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
All these writ petitions are founded on identical facts and raise a common question of law whether the Government of Orissa in its Department of Excise can insist on furnishing Bank Guarantee, instead of Solvency certificate, for grant or renewal of Excise Licenses in respect of IMFL ‘ON’ Shops/IMFL ‘OFF’ Shops, Beer Parlour ON shops, CL Shops/OS Shops, retail vend of IMFL, country spirit, fermented Tari, Pachwai and Bhang etc. As agreed upon by learned counsel for the parties, all writ petitions were taken up together for analogous hearing and passing a common judgment and order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
