KRUSHNA CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties and the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

(2.) ANNEXURE -3, the license granted to the Opposite Party No. 5 for retail sale of IMFL (Off shop) at the Brahmani Bridge Chhak in the district of Jaipur for the period 26.05.2008 to 31.03.2009 is under challenge. Petitioner as Sarpanch of Raichhanda Gram Panchayat has filed this Writ Petition, inter alia, on the ground that due procedure was not followed to settle the shop and to grant license.

(3.) EARLIER the Petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 3661 of 2008 in his capacity as the Sarpanch of Raichhanda Gram Panchayat challenging to opening of IMFL Off shop at the aforesaid place. That Writ Petition was filed after the public notice inviting objection was notified. Date of finalizing the lottery in that case for the year 2007 -08 was fixed by the Collector on 17.03.2008. The Writ Petition was filed on 11.03.2008 and interim order was passed in that Writ Petition on 13.03.2008 in Misc. Case No. 3290 of 2008. The interim order reads as follows: If no notice was given under Section 26(A) to Raichhanda Gram Panchayat and in fact the IMFL 'OFF' shop in question comes within that locality, the auction shall not be finalized without leave of this Court. Further in case it does not come within the locality of Raichhanda Gram Panchayat, the benefit of this order will not be available to the Petitioner. On 10.04.2008, the present Opposite Party No. 5 appeared in that Writ Petition as intervener and filed Misc. case No. 5231 of 2008 with the prayer to vacate the interim order. In that application, inter alia, she has stated that the Sarpanch, Raichhanda Gram Panchayat together with the public has submitted their common objection for opening of the Off shop at the disputed spot. In that respect, on 10.04.2008 the present Petitioner sought for an adjournment to make verification and further submission. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in fact an additional affidavit was filed denying the signature in the 'no objection' relied on by the intervener. But it appears on record that on 09.05.2008, the Writ Petition was dismissed in the following manner: Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that this Writ Petition has become infructuous by efflux of time. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed as it has become infructuous. Interim Order Dated 13.03.2008 stands discharged. The dispute relating to genuineness of the signature contained in that Writ Petition was therefore not resolved in view of the Petitioner withdrawing the Writ Petition on the ground that it had become infructuous.