RAMESH CHANDRA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the Commissioner -cum Secretary to Govt. of Orissa Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department in Appeal Case No. 11 of 2007 (vide Annexure -11) which has passed in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under Clause 14 of the OPDS (Control) Order, 2002. he Appellate Authority in the impugned order has come to the following findings:

(2.) MR . S.K. Das, counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the aforesaid impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that while the Appellate Authority had held that the proceeding against the petitioner was defective, yet, had not issued consequential directions to the appropriate authority to renew the Kerosene sub -wholesale licence of the petitioner, on the ground that the original proceeding had been initiated on an application of the petitioner seeking renew of the kerosene sub -wholesale licence for the year 2006 -07 and since the said period had expired by 31.3.2007, i.e., before the date of disposal by the Appellate Authority, it did not grant any further relief to the petitioner and instead directed that, as and when a fresh sub -wholesaler will be appointed, the appellant is free to apply for the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the directions of the Appellate Authority are wholly unlawful and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, having come to the conclusion that the Collector while passing the impugned order was erroneous, ought to have also further directed him to issue a license of renewal for the period after the order in appeal and such relief ought not to have denied on the ground that the original period of license sought for had expired. Learned Counsel further submits that as on the date of passing of the appellate order, the petitioner had in fact, already filed an application for renewal of licence for the period 2007 -08 as well vide Annexure -16 to the writ application, which was not taken into consideration.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties and considering the limited nature of grievance in the present case, I am of the considered view that once any order is challenged before the Appellate Authority and the said Appellate Authority allows such an appeal by holding that the impugned order suffers from any illegality, it is incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to pass necessary directions restoring such an Appellant to the position where the Appellant was as on the date of passing of the original impugned order. It is no doubt true that during the pendency of the appeal against the order refusing renewal of licence applied for the year 2006 -07 had lapsed and the appellate order was passed only on 13.9.2007. Yet, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority once having come to a finding that the order of Collector impugned before him was defective, to pass consequential necessary corollary orders to ensure that the benefits of the order in appeal accrues to the benefit to the appellant. In this respect, Annexure -16 to the writ application filed by the petitioner is its application seeking renewal of licence for the year 2007 -08.