PRAFULLA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl.Government Advocate.

(2.) THE submission of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they were duly appointed as dealers under the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002 (for short '2002 Order'). It is asserted that from the date of appointment they are discharging their duties strictly in consonance with the Rules and as per the instruction issued. Relying upon Clause 4 of the 2002 Order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners had applied for renewal of their licence the authorities neither accepted the renewal application nor have passed any orders. According to the petitioners in consonance with the aforesaid 2002 Order, it is incumbent upon the authorities to accept the renewal application, consider the same in consonance with the provisions of the said order and take a decision. Not discharging such statutory duties creates prejudice to the petitioners.

(3.) CLAUSE 7 of the 2002 Order clearly stipulates that the Licensing Authority may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of stating its case and for reasons to be recorded and communicated in writing, refuse or renew the licence.