PURNA CHANDRA PANDA Vs. GOVT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order allotting a 24 hours medical store in the campus of the Upgraded Primary Health Centre, Khariar in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was published in the issue of daily 'Samaj' dated 5-7-1994 inviting applications from unemployed Pharmacists (Gents and Ladies) and persons having medical shops for opening day and night medical shops in the campus of headquarters hospital and Community Health Centres (for short, 'C.H. Cs') in the district of Nuapada. The applications were to be addressed to the Chief District Medical Officer, Nuapada. According to the petitioner, he runs a medical shop but he did not submit any application for the day and night Drug Store as the advertisement related to allotment of shops in the district headquarters and C. H. Cs whereas at Khariar there was only an Upgraded Primary Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'UGPHC'). It is alleged that he was under a bona fide impression that the application was not meant for UGPHC, Khariar. However, to his utter surprise, he came across a communication of the Health Department permitting opposite party No. 3 to open a medicine shop in the campus of UGPHC, Khariar. It is alleged that opposite party No. 3 is the wife of opposite party No. 4, who is a Government employee serving as a pharmacist in the UGPHC, Khariar and that the allotment of a day and night shop in favour of opposite party No. 3 is mala fide and due to collusion between opposite parties 3 and 4. It is further submitted that opposite party No. 2 is not an unemployed Pharmacist and as such, she did not fulfil the criteria laid down in the advertisement and ought not to have been considered. He accordingly, prays for quashing the order passed in favour of opposite party No. 3 as per Annexure-1.

(3.) The petitioner has also challenged the opening of a second shop on the ground that his shop is sufficient to cater to the needs of the area and there is no necessity for a second shop. However, this cannot be considered as in our considered opinion, a monopoly cannot be created in favour of the petitioner and the authorities are therefore free to open a day and night medicine shop within the campus as per their policy to cater to the needs of the people, opening of a second shop will also entail supply of medicines at reasonable rates as it will do away with the possibility of exploitation of the people which may be possible if there is no competition and only one shop exists in the area.