SK TALIM ALI Vs. COLLECTOR, JAJPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, has filed this intra-Court appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2582 of 2015, whereby the order passed by the Sub-Collectorcum-Appellate Authority holding that the appellant is a native of Chandpur has been confirmed.

(2.) The facts which led to filing of this appeal are that Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) issued an advertisement in the year 2011 proposing to appoint Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) agents at different locations of the State of Orissa for various categories mentioned in respect of each place. In response thereto, in respect of the location at Brahmabarada, Kalan under Rasulpur Block in the district of Jajpur as mentioned against serial no.128, for which applications were invited from open category, the appellant and respondent no.4 made their applications claiming to be the resident of Brahmabarada, in view of the terms of the advertisement that the applicant for RGGLV should be a resident of the town/village of the advertised RGGLV locations. The appellant, in support of his place of residence, had filed the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Rasulpur in Misc. Certificate Case No.357 of 2013 indicating that he is the resident of Brahmabarada, Respondent no.4, challenging the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Rasulpur in favour of the appellant, preferred Misc. Appeal No.20 of 2013 before the SubCollector-cum-Appellate Authority, who, by order dated 27.01.2015 set aside the said resident certificate. Against the said order of the Sub-Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, the appellant preferred W.P.(C) No.2582 of 2015, and the learned Single Judge, having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the series of documents, vide order dated 11.09.2017, dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, which has been challenged before this Court in the instant appeal.

(3.) Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. C. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Sub-Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, while considering the appeal, had conducted no field inquiry and, as such, has only relied upon the report of the R.I. and lower court record, and passed the order cancelling the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Rasulpur. Therefore, the cancellation so made by the Sub-Collector-cum-Appellate Authority is arbitrary and unreasonable, and as such, without considering the same in proper perspective, the learned Single Judge ought not to have confirmed the same. It is further contended that the certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Rasulpur in Misc. Certificate Case No.357 of 2013 having been cancelled by the Sub-Collector-cumAppellate Authority, without making proper inquiry, the orders passed by the Sub-Collector-cum-Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is also contended that since the Sub-Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, while passing the order on 27.01.2015, opined that the lower court without conducting the field inquiry committed an error and basing on the report of the local R.I. issued the resident certificate in favour of the appellant, it should have remanded the matter back to the court below, namely, Tahasildar, Rasulpur, instead of setting aside the order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Tahasildar, Rasulpur in Misc. Certificate Case No.357 of 2013. Thereby, the order so passed by the Sub-Collector-cum-Appellate Authority and consequential confirmation made by the learned Single Judge should be quashed. So far as resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala dated 07.03.2011 in Misc. Case No.1958 of 2011, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this appeal, is concerned, it is stated that the same was not filed before the writ Court and, therefore, no reliance can be placed at this stage on the said document.