TARINI SANDHIBIGRAHA, S/O-PANCHANAN SANDHIBIGRAHA, VILLAGE-BELAMPUR, P.O./DIST: JAJPUR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order of the State Government dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure -4) by which the Additional Secretary to Government of Orissa in Excise Department communicated to the Excise Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack that Government after careful consideration have been pleased not to approve the proposal sent vide letter No.9039 dated 27.12.2010 for sanction of Beer Parlour "ON" licence in favour of Shri Tarini Sandhibigraha over Plot No. 600/794, Khata No. 197/29, Mouza Sanapatuli under Korei P.S. in the district of Jajpur for the remaining period of 2010 -11 as the same is not feasible in view of the existence of prohibitive sites under Rule 34 of the Orissa Excise Rules, 1965 urging various facts and legal contentions. The further prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of Beer Parlor "ON" Licence afresh.

(2.) PETITIONERS case in a nutshell is that his application made before opposite party no.2 -Collector, Jajpur for grant of beer parlour "ON" shop licence over plot no.600/794, Khata No. 197/29, Mouza Sanapatuli under Korei P.S. in the district of Jajpur was duly considered by opposite party no.2, who after following due procedure had forwarded the application to the State Government for passing of necessary orders. While the application of the petitioner was pending before the State Government, opposite party no.3 filed W.P.(c) No. 381 of 2011 in the garb of Public Interest Litigation before this Court challenging the recommendation made by opposite party no.2 to the State Government for sanction of the beer parlour "ON" shop licence in favour of the petitioner raising various allegations against the State authorities. This Court vide order dated 13.01.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 266 of 2011 arising out of said PIL directed opposite party no.2 -Collector to take steps for measurement of the distance between the new beer parlour 'ON shop which is going to be opened at Sanapatuli under Dhaneswar Grama Panchayat and the bathing ghat with the assistance of competent Engineers of Works Department and submit a report before this Court for consideration of the interim prayer. This Court further ordered that if any licence has not been issued for opening of the proposed new beer parlour 'ON shop at Sanapatuli under Dhaneswar G.P., the same shall not be issued till the next date. Pursuant to the said order of this Court dated 13.1.2011, opposite party no.2 deputed the Executive Engineer of Panikoili (R&B) Division to take necessary measurement . The said Executive Engineer prepared a free hand -sketch map showing the distance of different restricted places from the proposed beer parlour and submitted a report as per measurement taken by him to the opposite party no.2 vide letter dated 20.01.2011. Basing on the measurement taken by the Executive Engineer as per Annexure -3, the State Government vide its order dated 10.2.2011 rejected the proposal for sanction of the beer parlour 'ON shop licence in favour of the petitioner. W.P.(c) No.381 of 2011 filed by opposite party no.3 in the nature of PIL was taken up by this Court on 23.2.2011 and on that date a copy of the order of the Government passed under Annexure -4 was produced before this Court. On the basis of Annexure -4 this Court disposed of the writ petition with an observation that there was no need for this Court to examine the claim of the petitioner any further as the Government is not inclined to grant licence in favour of the petitioner (O.P.No.3 in PIL) for the area in question. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) MR . Panda further submitted that Maa Tarini IMFL 'ON shop is located within a distance of 140 metres of recognized and approved Government bathing ghat situated over Plot No.1261 and is at a distance of 240 metres from the petitioners proposed site to open the beer parlour 'ON shop. Opposite party no.3 had filed the PIL with a vested interest. If an IMFL 'ON shop can operate in the same vicinity within 140 metres of an approved bathing ghat, there is no reason to reject the application of the petitioner for being granted licence of a beer parlour 'ON shop. Thus the decision of the State Government taken under Annexure -4 is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. Further the said PIL has been filed suppressing various material facts. Opposite party no.3 had filed the writ petition bearing W.P.(c) No. 381 of 2011 as a self styled social worker, but in fact he was acting as an Agent of the owner of one Hotel 'Maa Tarini IMFL 'ON shop located in the same vicinity. Placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Villagers of Jarasingh Basantinath Dutta v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1997 Orissa 163, Mr. Panda submitted that Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be public interest litigation for private interest litigation. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and it cannot be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy him or his personal grudge or enmity. The Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extra -ordinary jurisdiction. Concluding his arguments, Mr. Panda prayed to allow the prayer made in the writ petition.