SAROJ KUMAR TRIPATHY Vs. COLLECTOR, SAMBALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite parties.

(2.) The petitioner challenges order No. 897/CS dated 19.6.2009 passed by the Collector, Sambalpur wherein he had suspended the Sub-wholesaler licence in respect of Kerosene Oil of the petitioner and tagged his quota to M/s. Sharma Trading Company Kerosene Oil wholesaler, Rairakhol under Annexure-2.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order there is nothing to show that the Collector, Sambalpur was satisfied that it was not in the interest of the smooth operation of the Public Distribution System to allow the petitioner to handle P.D.S. stock. So, the order cannot stand. He further submits that licence of the petitioner was renewed upto 30.9.2009 but it was suspended on 19.6.2009. Had it not been suspended, he would have worked as a Sub-wholesaler for two months and thirteen days more. Moreover, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the said order is quashed the petitioner cannot be eligible for appointment as a wholesaler for all time to come. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State contends that the order under challenge is appealable and the validity of the period of licence of the petitioner has already been over since 30.9.2009. So at this stage, the impugned order cannot be quashed. Without giving any reason as required under Sub-section 3 of Section 14 of the Orissa P.D.S. Control Order 2008, the Collector suspended the licence of the petitioner which is without jurisdiction. So, the writ petition can be maintainable. Moreover, the case was filed on 24.7.2009 in the meantime about 6 months have already been elapsed. So, at this stage I am not inclined to reject the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction only.