Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners, heard in person by the Court, filed this writ petition seeking a direction to opposite party No. 2 to grant licence/permission to organize musical or dance programmes (orchestras) engaging women artists and to permit use of loudspeakers inside the licensed premises of Ashoka FL Restaurant ON shop at Laxmisagar Chhack, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar. The relief sought relates to applications dated 08.05.2018 and 01.10.2018 submitted under the Annexure-3 series, invoking Rule 44(4) Proviso and Rule 44(5)(a) & (d) of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017.

The petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v. The State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 576 of 2016 disposed of on 17 January 2019). The petitioners requested that opposite party No. 2 be directed to consider their applications and further submitted that an identical matter (W.P.(C) No. 10141 of 2018) had already been decided by this Court on 30.07.2019 and that this petition may be disposed of in terms of that earlier order.

The Court disposed of the writ petition with directions that, in view of the applicable Excise Rules and the cited Supreme Court decision, the petitioners' applications shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the Court's order before the competent authority. The order also disposed of all connected miscellaneous cases/applications, and directed that an urgent certified copy of the order be granted as per rules.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether opposite party No. 2 should grant licence/permission to the petitioners to organize musical/dance programmes (orchestra), engage women artists and use loudspeakers inside the licensed premises pursuant to the applications dated 08.05.2018 and 01.10.2018 under Rule 44(4) Proviso and Rule 44(5)(a) & (d) of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017.
2. Whether the petitioners' applications should be considered and disposed of expeditiously in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners and the applicable Excise Rules.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning is concise and proceeds from the following considerations explicitly stated in the opinion:

• The petitioners were heard in person and had placed reliance on a relevant Supreme Court judgment.
• The Court considered the matter in the context of the Excise Rules in force in the State of Odisha and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the petitioners.
• The petitioners had urged that an identical matter had been previously decided by the Court and sought disposal along similar lines.
• On the combined basis of the applicable Excise Rules and the Supreme Court decision referred to, the Court concluded that the petitioners' applications ought to be considered and disposed of without delay. The Court specified a preferred timeline — within four weeks from production of a certified copy of the order before the competent authority — to ensure expeditious disposal.

The opinion does not elaborate on legal analysis beyond these steps, nor does it set out detailed findings on statutory interpretation or on factual disputes; rather, it directs administrative action by the competent authority in light of the applicable rules and the cited higher court decision.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners' applications for licence/permission to organize musical/dance programmes (engaging women artists and using loudspeakers) shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the competent authority.

Implications:

• Direct effect: The competent authority is obliged to consider and decide the petitioners' specified applications promptly — the Court indicated a preferred timeline of four weeks after the production of the certified copy of the order.
• All connected miscellaneous cases and interim applications, if any, were disposed of along with this writ petition.
• Broader precedent: The opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal principle beyond directing administrative action in the present matter and referencing the existing Supreme Court decision; it does not state that it is creating or declaring a binding new precedent.