BHABAGRAHI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Kerosene Sub -wholesaler in respect of Brahman Sailo under Kantapada block in the district of Cuttack. On 17.5.2004 he received an order of suspension of his aforesaid Sub -wholesale licence from the Civil Supplies Officer, Cuttack, vide Annexure -3. The said order revealed that the Collector, Cuttack had been pleased to suspend his licence on account of following irregularities detected by the State Enforcement Squad : - (1) He had shown sale of 1,000 litres of K.oil in Hat @ 100 litres on each Hat day during the period from 23.7.03 to 27.8.03 without maintaining sale account; (2) He had issued excess/less quantity of K.oil to the retailers during the period from July, 03 to Oct,03; and (3) He had issued K.oil to the non -card holders without maintaining books of account properly."

(2.) BY the said order Annexure -3 he had been directed to show cause as to why his K.oil sub -wholesale licence would not be cancelled on account of the aforesaid lapses. He showed cause explaining that he had been called upon by the concerned Inspector of Supplies, Kantapada to sell K.oil on each Hat day. The said Inspector being a Departmental officer, the petitioner stated, as per his instructions he having sold 1,000 K.oil at the rate of 100 litres on each Hat day, had committed no irregularity. So far as other irregularities pointed out he stated that those were not correct and opportunity given he would establish that he had not committed any such irregularities as alleged. Surprisingly, according to the petitioner, without considering his show -cause reply by order dated 7.10.2004, vide Annexure -6, the Collector was pleased to cancel his K.oil sub -wholesale licence with immediate effect. Being aggrieved against the said order Annexure -6, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent authority, but the said appellate authority vide order dated 2.4.2005, vide Annexure -7, confirmed the order of the Collector, Annexure -6.

(3.) LEARNED Addl.Govt.Advocate appearing for the opposite party -authorities at the other hand submitted that the petitioner had admitted his guilt before the appellate authority and, therefore, the orders Annexures -6 and 7 were well justified.