Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 498A IPC | Vague Allegations Without Specific Overt Acts Against Relatives Cannot Sustain Prosecution: Kerala High Court Motor Accident Claims | Tribunal Must Adopt Standardised Notional Income Charts For Determining Loss Of Future Earnings: Karnataka High Court Suit On Dishonoured Cheque Is Based On Statutory Liability Under Negotiable Instruments Act And Not On Underlying Original Transaction: Kerala High Court State Cannot Re-Litigate Grounds Rejected In Earlier Final Judgment To Deny Employment: Allahabad High Court Orders Appointment of Librarians JJ Act | JJBs Cannot Simply 'Return' Child In Conflict With Law To Police Without Passing Placement Orders If Bail Not Granted: Andhra Pradesh High Court PMLA | Official Banking Transactions In Usual Course Of Business Cannot Be Construed As Proceeds Of Crime: Bombay High Court Section 41A CrPC | Serving Notice After Arrest Is Illegal, Police Cannot Simply Arrest To Ask Questions: Bombay High Court Fit-Out Possession Without Completion Certificate Is Not Valid Possession; Builder Cannot Charge Delayed Interest Or GST When Default Is On Its Part: Chandigarh State Commission Appellate Court Must Not Disturb Acquittal Unless Trial Court’s View Is Perverse Or Manifestly Illegal: Gujarat High Court Order 12 Rule 6 CPC | Landlord Divesting Ownership Via Pre-Suit Sale Deed Loses Locus Standi Under Section 109 TP Act; Summary Eviction Decree Impermissible: Delhi High Court Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Under Section 144 Exists: Calcutta High Court 'Mere Assertion Of Higher Rent By Landlord Cannot Oust DRC Act': Delhi High Court Sets Aside Eviction Decree, Remands Matter Back Arbitration Clause In Agreement No Safe Harbour For Criminal Breach Of Trust; Pre-Arrest Bail In Economic Offences An Exception: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 10 CPC | Pecuniary Jurisdiction Cannot Be Determined Solely On Plaintiff's Oral Admission In Cross-Examination: Madras High Court Principle Of Parity Applies Even If Earlier Order Was Declared 'Not A Precedent': Orissa High Court Acquisition Lapses If Authority Inactive For Over 5 Years Excluding Stay; Bar On Subsequent Purchasers Inapplicable If Land Stood Released: Madhya Pradesh High Court Senior Citizens Act  | Summary Eviction Remedy Cannot Be Extended To Daughter-In-Law As She Is Neither 'Child' Nor 'Relative': Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 471 IPC | Mere Absence Of Direct Forgery Does Not Absolve Accused Of Using Forged Document As Genuine: Rajasthan High Court Criminal Proceedings Against Husband's Relatives Cannot Continue On Vague & Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Overt Acts: Telangana High Court Magistrate's Inability To Recall Order Does Not Preclude High Court From Restoring Cheque Bounce Complaint Dismissed In Default: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Orissa High Court Upholds Government’s Policy Decision on Liquor Shop Reopening: Not Subject To Routine Judicial Revie

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the sanctity of government policy decisions, the Honourable Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and The Honourable Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman delivered a judgment upholding the denial of reopening an IMFL “ON” shop. The judgment, issued on August 14, 2023, carries far-reaching implications for the judicial review of government policies and decisions.

The petitioner had sought to challenge the rejection of their representation for reopening a liquor shop that had been previously closed due to a Supreme Court judgment prohibiting liquor sale along highways. The shop owner argued that subsequent relaxations provided by the apex court warranted the reopening of the establishment.

In their insightful observation, the bench emphasized, “The Government’s discretion to formulate policies and decisions, including licensing, is not subject to routine judicial review. Courts consider legality, not the wisdom of policy decisions.” The judgment made it clear that while the judiciary has the authority to review decision-making processes, it should not interfere with the rightful power of the government to make policy decisions.

The case revolved around the delicate balance between individual business interests and government policies aimed at ensuring public welfare. The bench held that the petitioner’s claim for reopening the shop in its original location was in direct conflict with the government’s well-considered policy decisions based on directions from the apex Court. This ruling reinforces the principle that judicial review should focus on the legality of the process rather than the correctness of policy decisions.

This judgment echoes several landmark cases that have reaffirmed the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive branch. The bench’s decision serves as a reminder that the courts must exercise restraint in matters of government policy while safeguarding citizens’ rights through legal scrutiny of the decision-making process.

The ruling not only settles the specific case at hand but also contributes to the jurisprudence surrounding the review of government policies. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this judgment stands as a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of democratic governance and the rule of law.

 Date of Decision: 14th August, 2023

Shiv Prasad Bhagat vs State of Odisha & Ors. 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Shiv_Prasad_Bhagat_vs_State_Of_Odisha_Ors_on_14_August_2023_OrissaHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News