Statutory relaxation for liquor licences remains valid when the file shows applied mind, special circumstances and competent approval.

A statutory relaxation of the minimum-distance restriction for liquor licences under the Orissa Excise Rules was treated as valid where the official file showed conscious consideration by the competent authorities, including objections, distance requirements and revenue concerns. The absence of a separate formal order or an express recital of the relevant clauses did not invalidate the grant because the record disclosed application of mind and approval at the proper level. The stated special circumstances included demand for the shop, curbing illicit liquor trade and augmenting revenue. On that basis, the quashing of the licences was found unsustainable and the licences and privileges were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State Government had validly relaxed the minimum-distance restriction under Rule 34 of the Orissa Excise Rules, 1965 for grant of the impugned liquor licences; (ii) whether the absence of an express reference to the relevant clauses and the absence of separately recorded reasons invalidated the grant.

Issue (i): whether the State Government had validly relaxed the minimum-distance restriction under Rule 34 of the Orissa Excise Rules, 1965 for grant of the impugned liquor licences;

Analysis: The record showed that the Collector, the Excise Commissioner, the Joint Secretary, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary and the Minister all considered the proposals, the objections and the factual distance restrictions, and the file culminated in approval and communication of the grant. The note-sheet disclosed conscious consideration of the relevant restrictions and recommendation for relaxation in the interest of revenue and to curb illicit trade. Mere absence of a separate formal order in a particular format did not negate the existence of a governmental decision when the file revealed approval at the competent level.

Conclusion: The relaxation was validly granted and the licences could not be set aside on the ground that no order existed.

Issue (ii): whether the absence of an express reference to the relevant clauses and the absence of separately recorded reasons invalidated the grant.

Analysis: The governing proviso permitted relaxation in special circumstances. The materials relied upon by the departmental authorities, including demand for the shop, prevention of illicit liquor trade and augmentation of revenue, constituted special circumstances. Non-mentioning of the precise clauses in the communication did not amount to non-application of mind, and the note-sheet as a whole showed that the authority had considered the distance restrictions and endorsed relaxation. The earlier reliance on Section 41 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 did not defeat the statutory requirement when the decision itself was discernible from the official record.

Conclusion: The grant was not invalid for want of express recital of the clauses or separate reasons.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's quashing order was unsustainable, and the impugned licences and privileges were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the official file and consequential communication show conscious consideration and approval by the competent authority, a statutory relaxation is valid even if the order does not expressly recite the relevant rule or separately record reasons, provided the record discloses application of mind to the statutory criteria and special circumstances.

---