MAMAN RAM AGRAWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the 5th journey of petitioner to this Court. In this writ application, the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite parties 2 to 4 to appoint him as Storage Agent for Harbhanga Block for the year 2005 -2006 and execute the agreement within a specified period.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he had applied for appointment as Storage Agent for Harbhanga Block in the year 1992 and after necessary inquiry, the Collector, Boudh (O.P. No. 4) found the petitioner eligible for such appointment and recommended his case to the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. for such appointment. The petitioner was therefore appointed as storage agent for Harbhanga Block for the year 1992 -1993 and, thereafter, continued as such till the dispute arose in the year 2003 -2004. For the year 2003 -2004, the opposite party No. 4 -Collector after conducting inquiry had recommended the name of the petitioner for continuance as storage agent for the aforesaid Harbhanga Block and the matter was pending before the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation for issuance of appointment order. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party No. 4 issued notice to the petitioner to show cause on 1.2.2004 as to why he should not be debarred from being appointed as storage agent for the financial year 2003 -2004 on the ground that his relative is a miller agent and has commercial link with a transport agent of Schematic Rice of the district Boudh. The petitioner Submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice to show cause on 8.2.2004 refuting the allegation and in the said reply, he had specifically stated that he is in no way related to any miller agent nor is commercially linked with any transport agent. In the said reply, he also requested the opposite party No. 4 to take immediate steps for appointing him as storage agent for the year 2003 -2004. After submission of the reply, it is the case of the petitioner that he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1481 of 2004 praying for quashing the notice to show cause. However, the said writ application was not pressed as consideration of the case of the petitioner for the year 2004 -2005 had become due. After submission of the reply, an inquiry was conducted by the Sub -Collector and a report was submitted on 23.2.2004 and it was made clear in that report that the petitioner had no commercial link with any miller agent. It is, therefore case of the petitioner that on the basis of such report, his case should have been recommended again by the Collector -opposite party No. 4 for appointment as storage agent for the year 2004 -2005. No action having been taken, the petitioner again approached this Court in W,P.(C) No. 887 of 2005 for appointment as storage agent for Harbhanga Block till 31st March, 2005 in view of the fact that the other storage agents appointed in the district were allowed to continue till the said period without a fresh appointment/agreement. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of on 24.1.2005 directing the opposite party No. 4 to consider the reply of the petitioner as well as representation made by him for continuance as storage agent for the aforesaid Harbhanga Block for the year 2004 -2005. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ applications, no action was taken by the opposite party No. 4 to allow the petitioner to continue as storage agent for the year 2004 -2005. The petitioner, therefore, again approached the Collector by way of representation for extending the appointment as storage agent till 31 st March, 2005 and no action having been taken in the said representation, the petitioner again approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 2304 of 2005 and the said writ application was disposed of on 11.3.2005 directing the opposite party No. 4 to dispose of the representation and further directing that if the other storage agents in the district have been allowed to continue till 31 st March, 2005, there is no reason for discriminating the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that in spite of the aforesaid order, extension was not given to the petitioner and his representation was rejected on the ground that appointment for the year 2005 -2006 would be made on the basis of guidelines issued by the Civil Supplies

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 4. In paragraph -3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that vide letter dated 31.10.2005, the Managing Director, Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has communicated the select list of persons to be appointed as storage agent for the financial year 2005 -2006. On the basis of the above, one Sarat Bhusan Mohanty -opposite party No. 5 has been appointed as storage agent for Harbhanga Block (Part) and has executed agreement on 7.11.2005. The learned counsel for the State with reference to the aforesaid paragraph submits that in view of above, the writ application has become in fructuous. It is also the case of the opposite party No. 4 in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had not been given appointment as storage agent for Harbhanga Block for the year 2003 -2004 and, therefore the question of continuance like others did not arise. In paragraph -6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that since the petitioner had not been given appointment for the year 2003 -2004, a committee formed for the purpose decided to operate the storage agency for Harbhanga Block departmentally as the infrastructure facilities available in the Harbhanga Block were adequate to operate departmentally for the greater interest of the general public and also to accommodate the existing staff. In paragraph -17 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that though the name of opposite party No. 5 had not been recommended by the Collector for appointment as storage agent for the year 2005 -2006, still he was selected by the State Level Selection Committee and, therefore, the Collector had no other option except issuing appointment order to the opposite party No. 5 appointing him as storage agent for a part of Harbhanga Block for the year 2005 -2006. The counter affidavit filed by the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation and its officers as well as opposite party No. 5 are no different than what has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 4.