LILIMA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts and points of law involved in both these Writ petitions being the same, with consent of counsel for the parties both the cases were heard together.

(2.) THE petitioner in both the Writ Petitions was the sub -wholesaler licence holder for Kerosene Oil under the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002 in respect of Patrapur under Aul Block in Kendrapara district. Basing on a report of the Enforcement Squad of Bhubaneswar alleging that on 3.3.2005 the said squad detected some irregularities at her sub -wholesale point, the Collector of Kendrapara, on 9.9.2005, issued a notice calling upon her to show cause why her aforesaid sub -wholesaler licence should not be cancelled. Pursuant to that notice, the petitioner submitted her show -cause reply. As there was delay in disposal of the matter by the Collector, the petitioner approached this Court in WP(C) No.9217/05. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 29.7.2005 directing the Collector to consider the show -cause reply filed by the petitioner and dispose of the matter expeditiously. Before the matter was not disposed of by the Collector, one Guru Charan Biswal, intervenor in W.P.(C) No.499/06 and opposite party No.7 in WP(C) No.3024/06, was appointed as the sub -wholesaler at Singiri Bazar and the quota of Kerosene Oil of the petitioner in respect of Patrapur under Aul Block was discontinued. Therefore the petitioner again approached this Court assailing the said order of appointment of aforesaid Guru Charan Biswal as a sub -wholesaler vide W.P.(C) No.9826 of 2005. The said Writ Petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to move the Collector and directing the Collector to look into her grievance. It is alleged that thereafter the Collector passed the following order on 14.11.2005 : -

(3.) AFTER receiving notice, the State Government filed a counter -affidavit taking the stand that no order was ever passed by the erstwhile Collector either on 14.11.2005 or 16.11.2005, and in fact on 16.11.2005 the case had been adjourned. Thereafter the proceeding under Section 6 -A of the E.C. Act, initiated against the petitioner, was heard by the successor Collector who disposed of the same holding the petitioner guilty of the alleged irregularities. It was averred that in view of the aforesaid facts the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine. The intervenor/opposite party Guru Charan Biswal also filed a counter -affidavit more or less taking the same stand as taken by the State.