MANORAMA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed a Sub -wholesale Dealer of Kerosene oil. Being aggrieved by appointment of opposite party No. 5 and reduction of his quota the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) of 13713 of 2004. Mr. Das submits that during the pendency of the said writ application, it was learnt that the license of the petitioner had been renewed and she had been allowed to lift her quota of Kerosene, accordingly the writ application was disposed of by order dtd. 9.8.2005 observing as follows:

(2.) THERE after, it appears that the Collector, Nayagarh passed an order on 29.9.2005 reducing the quota of the petitioner from 17 K.L. to 10 K.L. on the ground that the writ application filed by the petitioner has been disposed by this Court and she has lost the case. But then the said reasoning as would be apparent from the order passed by this Court, quoted supra, is not correct.

(3.) IN view of the fact that the reasoning assigned in order dtd. 29.9.2005 are not correct, I set aside the said order and direct the Collector to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned order in accordance with materials available and law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case of either of the parties. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.