MANORAMA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAT facts leading to the present Writ Petition in substance is that due to cancellation of licence of one M/s. Raja Ram Agency of Padampur Block, one Md. Zaved, who was operating as Kerosene Oil Sub -Wholesaler of Khuntapali under Gaisilat Block of Padampur Sub -Division, was given additional charge of Padampur Block on 12.09.2001 by way of an interim arrangement. In the meantime, Opposite Party No. 1 issued a set of guideline vide its letter dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure -1) to all Collectors stipulating therein inter alia that no person or family member shall be granted any licence as a sub -wholesaler/wholesaler/retailer for S.K. Oil, if either he or any of his family member is in business of S.K. Oil. In that letter, it was specifically mentioned that the appointment of new kerosene Oil sub -wholesaler shall be made only after inviting application for a period of two weeks. Pursuant to this guideline Opposite Party No. 2 directed Sub -Collector, Padampur to initiate process of selection for appointment of kerosene Oil Sub -wholesale dealer for Padampur Block and accordingly the Sub -Collector made an advertisement inviting application under Annexure -2 from interested persons. The Petitioner and 8 others applied for the said Sub -wholesale dealer. After making necessary scrutiny of the applications, the Sub -collector recommended the name of three applicants including the Petitioner to Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 after considering the recommendation of the Sub -Collector appointed the Petitioner as Sub -wholesaler dealer of S.K. Oil for Padampur Block vide Order Dated 19.07.2007 (Annexre -4). Md. Zaved who, by an interim arrangement, was functioning as Sub -wholesaler of Padampur Block challenged the appointment of the Petitioner on regular basis before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9386 of 2005 and prayed for a direction to appoint him as kerosene Oil, Sub -wholesaler, Padampur Block. After hearing the parties this Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to Opposite Party No. 2 to enquire as to whether the Petitioner satisfies the stipulation made in the guidelines and qualifies to be appointed as sub -wholesaler. The Opposite Party No. 2 was also directed to enquire into the allegations available against Md. Zaved and to decide the question of appointment of sub -wholesaler in respect of Padampur Depot depending on finding of the enquiry. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, Opposite Party No. 2 enquired into the matter and in the result recorded a finding that Md. Zaved is not eligible to be appointed a sub -wholesaler at Padampur Block and also that the Petitioner does not fulfil the conditions contained in paragraph -7 of the guidelines as she and her husband's brother -Manoranjan Sahoo are members of one house and living in a joint mess and Manoranjan was already holding a licence of Sub -wholesaler point in Sargibahal. He accordingly canceled the licence of the Petitioner observing that the Petitioner who is another member of the same family cannot be allowed to hold licence as sub -wholesaler in kerosene Oil. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the said order of the Collector dated 7.12.2005. Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 filed a joint counter affidavit wherein they supported the finding an order of the Collector dated 7.12.2005. They claim that the Petitioner as well as Md. Zaved were given opportunity of hearing and for production of materials and on consideration of those materials and submissions the order was passed giving reasons. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that there is no scope of interfering with the order under Annexure -7, as the same is neither arbitrary nor violative of the principle of natural justice. It is also noted that an appeal forum being available under Clause -14 of the Orissa public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002 (herein after referred to as 'PDS Order 2002'), Writ Petition is not maintainable. The Opposite Party No. 4 filed counter affidavit supporting the plea of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) MR . S. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing and production of evidence in the inquiry by the Collector. He also states that it was not proper on the part of the Collector to hold that there was no partition between Manoranjan and husband of the Petitioner and that they are living in the same house by simply relying on the entries of the voter list. According to him, the order in Annexure -7 is not correct and, therefore, it should be quashed. He also argued that the order of cancellation of the Sub -dealership licence of the Petitioner does not come within the scope of Clause -10 of the P.D.S. Order, 2002 and is therefore, not appealable under Clause 14.

(3.) MR . P.K. Nanda, Learned Counsel for intervenor -Opposite Party No. 4 reiterates the submission of Learned Additional Standing Counsel.