JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. The Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL) ‘OFF’ shop of opposite party no.6 was required to be shifted because of the direction issued by the Supreme Court, whereby no liquor shop is to be permitted within 500 metres of the National Highways. Since the shop of opposite party no.6, being within the stipulated zone, was required to be shifted, a public notice in Form-A was issued by the Collector, Khurda on 24.03.2017 inviting objections for shifting of ‘OFF’ shop of opposite party no.6 at plots no. 256 and 260 of Khata No. 292, Mouza Bhubaneswar Sahar, Unit No. 16 – Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar. On publication of such notice, objections were filed by members of the petitioner society, as well as local MLA and Mayor of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and also others. On receipt of such objections, the matter was enquired into by the Inspector of Excise, Bhubaneswar Range, who vide its report dated 26.04.2017, had written to the Superintendent of Excise, Khurda as under: “To DB No. 72 Dt. 26.4.17 The Superintendent of Excise, Khordha. Sub.: Report on the petitions filed by Sj. Priyadarsini Mishra, Hon’ble MLA, Sj. Ananta Narayan Jena, Mayor (BMC) & others, against the shifting of Jayadev Vihar IMFL ‘OFF’ shop. Ref. : Your letter No. 802 Dt-10.4.17 Sir, This is regarding petition filed by Sj. Priyadarshi Mishra, Hon’ble MLA, Sj. Ananta Narayan Jena, Mayor (BMC), Jagyabalkya Mohanty, Artatrana Biswal, Smt. Puspita Chintak & others, against the shifting of Jaydev Vihar IMFL ‘OFF’ shop. Altogether, five petitions have been received in this connection. The Petitions speak of existence of some objectionable places viz. educational institution, religious institution & residential colony in close proximity to the proposed ‘OFF’ shop and the apprehension of social problems likely to arise in the locality. At the outset, contacted Mayor, BMC over phone. Agreeing to have filed the petition, told to go in accordance with the relevant Excise laws in force, in the greater interest of the local residents. When contacted the Hon’ble MLA, referring to the existence of some objectionable places, especially the Temple located in close proximity & the resentment of the local residents, advised to change the locality of the proposed shop, to respect the feelings of the senior citizens of that locality. Also contacted a number of petitioners, namely; Sri Yagyabalkya Mohanty, Dr. When contacted the Hon’ble MLA, referring to the existence of some objectionable places, especially the Temple located in close proximity & the resentment of the local residents, advised to change the locality of the proposed shop, to respect the feelings of the senior citizens of that locality. Also contacted a number of petitioners, namely; Sri Yagyabalkya Mohanty, Dr. Benudhar Biswal, Ajit Kumar Das, Biswanath Mishra, Artatrana Biswal (President, Temple Committee), Bimal Kumar Mishra, Smt. Puspita Chintak, Smt. Bilasini Das, Adikanda Barik, Udayanath Nayak (President, J.V.B.N.M), Rabindra Nath Mohanty, Gauranga Senapati, Jalandhara Parida & others. All of them, reiterating their stand taken earlier & referring to the Temple, Biju Pattnaik College & a number of residential buildings in that vicinity, apprehended that opening of an ‘OFF’ shop in a residential zone, shall certainly make the undesirable effects of liquor feel in that locality. Hence, fiercely opposed the proposal with much repugnance and requested the administration to drop the proposal, in the interest of public. More so, cautioned to move to higher forum, in concert with the students & local residents, in case their demand goes unheard. Apart from this, Sri Subash Chandra Pradhan, Principal, Biju Pattnaik College, though had not filed objection before, when contacted on the request of the local residents over phone, disfavoured the proposal. As regards objectionable places, those have been vividly described in my previous report, it is to mention that, there exist one religious & educational institution, as referred to in the petitions, within the restrictive distance of the proposed shop & as such violates rule-26 of O.E. Rules-2017. Besides, a number of residential buildings exist in the vicinity. On the contrary, in the face of directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for removal excise shops along N.H., shifting has been applied for by the EPH, to a distance of about 300 mt. from the existing place, to maintain safe distance from N.H. under certain compelling circumstances, which is equally difficult for the licensee to get it materialised. However, the apprehension of the local residents regarding liquor-related nuisance in a residential zone, which is a common phenomenon in urban areas, appears to be a matter of concern. Thus looking at the proposal of shifting, necessitated by the directives of the Hon’ble apex Court, vis-a-vis the violation of rule-26 & resentment of the local residents raised in this context, decision may be taken as deemed proper. Thus looking at the proposal of shifting, necessitated by the directives of the Hon’ble apex Court, vis-a-vis the violation of rule-26 & resentment of the local residents raised in this context, decision may be taken as deemed proper. Yours Faithfully Inspector of Excise Bhubaneswar Range” 2. On perusal of the office notes (which form part of the original file, which has been produced before us) it is evident that all notings referred to a number of objections having been filed by the local residents, as well as local MLA and Mayor. Most of the notings have mentioned that since there are number of objection petitions with regard to shifting of the shop, the proposal be sent to the Government along with the objection petitions and enquiry report of the Inspector of Excise. The last such noting made by an officer on 16.06.2017 (before it was placed before the Collector) also mentions that “Since the Hon’ble MLA and Mayor, Bhubaneswar object to the proposal, we may send it to Govt. alongwith all reports for consideration at their level.” In the teeth of the aforesaid notings, as well as the objections in the form of the report of the Inspector of Excise, the Collector made the following noting on 17.06.2017: “As the grounds of objections laid out by the above mentioned individuals is not applicable as mentioned in the note pre page, this practice may also set a wrong precedence. Anyone may object but with valid grounds. The Govt. in Excise depat may be kept informed, and shifting allowed.” Pursuant thereto, on the very same date, the Superintendent of Excise, Khurda passed the order of shifting of the shop of opposite party no.6, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the same is passed “By the order of the Collector, Khurda”. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, which is a registered society of the residents of the area in which the shop is to be shifted. 3. We have heard Mr. Prabhu Prasanna Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner; as well as Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties; and Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Anand Prakash Das, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 5 and 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties; and Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Anand Prakash Das, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 5 and 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objections were invited under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 read with Orissa Excise Rules, 1965, and Orissa Excise Exclusive Privilege Rules, 1970, the relevant provisions of which correspond to Section 20 of the Orissa Excise Act, 2008 and Rule 53 of the Orissa Excise Rules, 2017 (both of which came into force on 01.04. 2017). The submission thus is that whether it be under the old Act and Rules or the new Act and Rules, the objections invited are to be considered and thereafter recommendation has to be made by the Collector to the Excise Commissioner, and/or the State Government through the Excise Commissioner, and it is only after approval is accorded by the State Government, or the Excise Commissioner, as the case may be, Collector is to grant permission for shifting of the shop. It is thus contended that in the present case, neither objections nor the report of the Excise Inspector have been considered by the Collector while passing the order dated 17.06.2017. It is further contended that the compliance of the relevant Rules has not been made in the present case, as the approval of the Excise Commissioner or the State Government has not been obtained before issuance of the order of shifting. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has vehemently argued that Rule-26 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017 would not be applicable to the case of ‘OFF’ shop, as the same applies to licence for shop for consumption of liquor on the vender’s premises. It is thus submitted that the Inspector had wrongly opined that the objections fulfilled the criteria laid down in Rule-26, which was not applicable to the present case. 6. Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. It is thus submitted that the Inspector had wrongly opined that the objections fulfilled the criteria laid down in Rule-26, which was not applicable to the present case. 6. Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. A. P. Das, learned counsel for private opposite parties no.5 and 6 has reiterated the submission made by learned Additional Government Advocate and has relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Bimala Parija and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2011 (I) OLR 107 and has further submitted that since there are ‘ON’ shops within the close vicinity of the area where the shop of the opposite party no.6 is now to be shifted, hence there cannot be any objection with regard to shifting of the shop of opposite party no.6. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Objections are invited for the purpose of being considered at the time when final order is to be passed. In the present case, not only objections were invited but an inquiry was also conducted by the Inspector of Excise, who has submitted a detailed report on 26.04.2017 detailing the merits of the objections and opined that the shifting of the shop would not be in terms of Rule-26 of the Rules 2017. While passing the order, the Collector, Khurda has neither considered objections nor the report of the Excise Inspector. Without expressing any opinion as to whether Rule-26 would apply to the ‘OFF’ shop or not, we may mention that Rule-27 also lays down similar conditions with regard to grant of licence of liquor shops, which includes the ‘ON’ shops and ‘OFF’ shops. As such, non-compliance of Rule-27 ought to have been considered by the Collector while approving the proposal for shifting of the shop of opposite party no.6. Even otherwise, under the old Rules, as well as new Rules 2017, the Collector, after considering the objections, was obliged to forward the proposal along with the comments to the State Government, through the Excise Commissioner, or to the Excise Commissioner only, and it was only after the approval had been granted by the Excise Commissioner or the State Government, as the case may be, that the licence could be granted or permission for shifting could be accorded. In the present case, even though the subordinate officer in the noting categorically stated that in view of the objections by the local MLA and Mayor, as also by the local residents and the report of the Inspector, the proposal should be sent to the Government, along with all the reports and objections, yet the Collector passed the order dated 17.06.2017 on the file allowing the shifting of the shop of opposite party no.6, and on the very same day, without there being any approval of the Excise Commissioner or the State Government, as required under the law, the order of shifting has been passed by the Superintendent of Excise on 17.06.2017 mentioning that the same was “By order of the Collector”. 8. In view of the aforesaid, since the order of shifting has been passed against the provisions of law and without considering the objections of the petitioner, as well as without approval of the Excise Commissioner and the State Government, we are of the clear opinion that the said order dated 17.06.2017 deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 9. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order as to cost. 10. However, it shall open to the authority concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law, after considering objections and obtaining necessary approval under the Rules from the concerned higher authority. The original record placed before us by the learned Additional Government Advocate shall be returned to him.