SARASWATI PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment and order, we dispose of both the writ petitions, namely, O.J.C. Nos. 8755 and 11607 of 1996, as the subject-matter in both is same, namely, allotment of 24 hours medical store in the campus of the Community Health Centre at Parjang in the district of Dhenkanal in favour of Smt. Ranjita Das, who is O.P. No. 6 and O.P. No. 4 in O. J. C. Nos. 8755 and 11607 of 1996 respectively.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :While Smt. Saraswati Parida, the petitioner in O.J.C. No 8755 / 96, who was also an applicant for allotment of the aforesaid medical store, has challenged the allotment order made in favour of Smt. Ranjita Das; Smt. Rasmita Sahoo, the petitioner in the other case (O.J.C. No. 11607 / 96), though not an applicant for the said medical store, has challenged the allotment order, inter alia, on the ground that neither any advertisement was made by the Chief District Medical Officer, Dhenkanal, in two local dailies nor any notice was affixed in the notice board of the office for the purpose. She has also alleged that the President of the Advisory Committee of the Community Health Centre, Parjang, who is a sitting member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, is related to Smt. Ranjita Das, O.P. No. 4 therein, and has influenced the Chief District Medical Officer for recommending her case to the Director of Health Services. She has alleged violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution and that the allotment was made secretly and with mala fide intention.In the first writ petition (O.J.C. No. 8755/ 96), the petitioner, who also applied for the said medical store and whose application has been rejected, has challenged the role of the Advisory Committee in recommending the name of Smt. Ranjita Das and has also alleged violation of the principle of natural justice. According to the writ petitioner, the land on which the Community Health Centre is functioning belonged to her father but it was occupied by the Revenue Department for construction of the said Centre without giving any compensation. It has also been alleged that there are five other medical stores situated outside the campus and those medical stores remain open for 24 hours to serve and fulfil the requirements of the public. She claims to be unemployed whereas Smt. Ranjita Das is aged 45 years and is the wife of a Govt. employee, who is serving as a Lecturer. According to her, in view of the Government notification, she stood on a better footing and her name should have been recommended instead of Smt. Ranjita Das. She has further stated that opposite party No. 6 Smt. Ranjita Das has suppressed the fact that she had a medical store at the time of filing of the application in the name and style "Ranjita Medical Store, " which is attached to the campus of the C.H.C.In O.J.C. No 11607/96, Smt. Ranjita Das, O.P. No. 4, in her counter-affidavit has averred that the petitioner has no locus standi as she was not an applicant and, that apart, at that relevant time she was not eligible to apply as she was not a Pharmacist. A categorical statement has been made that the advertisement was duly issued by the C.D.M.O., Dhenkanal, which was published in the notice board of the C.H.C. and a copy thereof has been annexed as Annexure P/ 4. According to her, in the aforesaid advertisement dated 6-10-1994, it was specifically stated that the medical store was reserved for lady candidate of Parjang. Her application has been annexed as Annexure-B/4. She has further averred that the Advisory Committee of the C.H.C. which was duly constituted as per Government instructions communicated to the C.D.M.O., Dhenkanal, by memo No. 8030 dated 12-10-1992 to look into the smooth functioning and development of the C.H.C., not only took the decision to call for applications from lady candidates of the locality, but after receipt of applications recommended her case for allotment of the medicine store. She has also urged that one Abhimanyu Parida, Proprietor of "Medico Prithiraj" and father of the petitioner-Saraswati Parida in O. J. C No. 8755/96 has instigated the present writ petitioner to file the petition. In reply to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 4 Ranjita Das, it has been averred that the petitioner being a qualified Pharmacist was eligible to run the medical store.In the counter-affidavit filed by Smt. Ranjita Das, O. P. No. 6 in O.J.C. No. 8755 / 96, it is stated that all the applications received in response to the advertisement were sent to the Director of Health Services along with the views / comments for final decision as per Government instructions vide Annexure-A and the Director of Health Services in his turn sent the same to the Government for final decision vide Annexure-B. After careful consideration and scrutiny of all the applications and finding opposite party No. 6 Ranjita Das to be the only suitable candidate, the Government by letter dated 26-7-1996, Vide Annexure-C, allotted the medical store in her name, Whereafter O. P. No. 6 deposited Rs. 6,000 / - vide challan, Annexure-D, and executed the required agreement, Annexure-E. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, she has given a comparison regarding the qualification between the writ petitioner and herself. It has also been averred in the said paragraph that the writ petitioner after marriage is residing with her in-laws in village Rahas, Talcher, in the district of Angul and, therefore, she is no more a local resident and further her husband is working in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. at Talcher drawing a "good salary." It has been denied that the C. H. C. was constructed on the land belonging to the writ petitioner and, on the other hand, the father of the writ petitioner is running a medicine shop, namely, "Prithiraj Medical Store" encroaching upon Govt. land. It has also been denied that five medicine shops are situated close to the campus of the C.H.C. out of which three are running 24 hours. She has denied that she is the proprietress of "Ranjita Medical Store" as she gave up her proprietorship since 23-10l993, i.e., much prior to the advertisement. In additional affidavit filed on behalf of Smt Ranjita Das, O. P. No. 6, she has specifically denied that Prabodh Kumar Das, proprietor of "Ranjita Medical Store" is related to her in any way. She has also denied that she has any medical store and that she was / is in Government service. In her additional affidavit, she has given a genealogy to show that there is no blood relationship between her and Prabodh Kumar Das, proprietor of "Ranjita Medical Hall." On the other hand, she has made an emphatical statement that the father of the present petitioner is the proprietor of a medicine shop. In the rejoinder to the additional affidavit filed by O.P. No. 6, the writ petitioner has given a genealogy to show the blood relationship between Prabodh Kumar Das, Proprietor of "Ranjita Medical Store" and Smt. Ranjita Das, O.P. No. 6. It has also been alleged. that the President of the Advisory Committee of the C. H.C, is also the blood relation of Smt. Ranjita Das, O.P. No. 6.

(3.) Before considering the facts of the two writ petitioner vis-a-vis the action of the State Government in allotting the 24 hours medical store in favour of Smt. Ranjita Das, let us now state the scope of judicial review of this Court in matters of administrative action and also grant of largess, by the State Government, as admittedly grant of licence to run a 24 hours medical store is a largess.