The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Sanjulata Pradhan ....... Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & others ....... Opposite Parties Advocate for the parties For Petitioner : Mr. H. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Ms. S. Devi, Addl. Standing Counsel ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 07.01.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner challenging the order dated Nil, as at Annexure-8, on the ground that, though the said order was passed pursuant to order dated 17.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29404 of 2021, but the same is an incomplete order and was never communicated to the Petitioner. Only after receiving a copy of letter dated 02.11.2023 addressed to the Office of the learned Advocate General, Odisha and knowing about passing of the order of cancellation of P.D.S. license of the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner applied for the certified copy of the said order. On receiving the certified copy of the so called order, the Petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition as the said order is incomplete and it neither indicates the reason so also the fact of cancellation of the P.D.S. license of the Petitioner nor bears the signature of the Licensing Authority so also the date of passing of such order. 2. The brief facts which led to filing of the Writ Petition are that, the Additional District Magistrate (Opposite Party No.2) floated an advertisement inviting applications for selection, appointment of retailer under Public Distribution System, for the area Sector-5, Rourkela, with reservation for ladies in the Year 1996. The Petitioner being eligible, to maintain livelihood of her W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 2 of 15 family, applied for the same. As she satisfied all the terms and conditions of the advertisement, an order of appointment was issued in her favour on 20.02.1996 for distribution of commodities under Public Distribution System, which has been regularly renewed from year to year till date. The Petitioner continued to serve as a retailer dealing with Wheat, Rice and Kerosene under the Public Distribution System for the area Sector-5, Rourkela without violating any terms and conditions of the license of the Odisha Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2016, shortly hereinafter ‘Control Order, 2016’, under which she has been governed, nor she has been issued with any show cause for enquiry against her in last 26 years. Further, the Officer under Opposite Party No.2 also recorded satisfaction in dealing with the commodities by the Petitioner and no irregularity or illegality has been found against the Petitioner. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 01.04.2020, when the Petitioner was discharging her duties to supply Rice and Wheat at the doorstep of the consumers as per W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 3 of 15 the direction of the Opposite Party No.2, maintaining the Covid Guidelines so also endorsing the sale in the cards of the consumers, suddenly, she was called by the Asst. Civil Supply Officer, namely Ramchandra Tudu to report at her shop. Thereafter, the Petitioner and her son found a large number of people, Supply Officer, Executive Magistrate etc. are questioning about a Tempo said to have been seized with 10 Quintals of Rice, which the Petitioner has got nothing to do with the rice or Tempo, as her stock is up-to-date and accurate as per the materials received and sale to the consumers without any
Facts
infirmity in her stock or in any manner regarding the terms and conditions of the license as well as the Control Order, 2016. 4. However, an order of suspension of the retail license was issued against the Petitioner on the very next date i.e. on 02.04.2020, by the Opposite Party No.2 with
Legal Reasoning
by the Petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.29404 of 2021. This Court, vide Judgment dated 17.02.2023, set aside the cancellation order dated 01.09.2021 and remitted the matter back to the Opposite Party No.2 for reconsideration after providing an opportunity of hearing W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 5 of 15 to the Petitioner. In pursuance to the direction of this Court vide Judgment dated 17.02.2023, a hearing was conducted by the Opposite Party No.2. After recording the depositions of the Petitioner as well as other persons, the Opposite Party No.2 passed an order upholding the cancellation order dated 01.09.2021, which came to the knowledge of the Petitioner vide letter No.4764 dated 02.11.2023 addressed to the learned Advocate General, Odisha. On receipt of the certified copy of the order passed by the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner found that the said order has not been passed in terms of the observation made by this Court vide Judgment dated 17.02.2023. Hence, this Writ Petition. 6. Though a detailed Counter has been filed by the State opposing to the prayer made in the Writ Petition, on perusal of the Counter it is found that the
Arguments
a direction to tag the centre of the Petitioner with one Sri Amitav Dhal for smooth distribution of PDS Commodities without supplying the so called verification report so also W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 4 of 15 show cause notice to the Petitioner. On 09.05.2020, the Petitioner made a representation to the Opposite Party No.2 requesting to allow her to continue with her retailership. The detailed accounts of her stock in hand and the stocks sold to the consumers were also submitted by the Petitioner before the Opposite Party No.3 indicating therein that there is no illegality or irregularity in the stock. 5. It is the further case of the Petitioner that on 01.09.2021, the Opposite Party No.2 cancelled the P.D.S. license of the Petitioner without calling upon the Petitioner to show cause, alleging violation of Clause-10 of the Control Order, 2016 for contravention of license condition 2 (b) under Clause-6 (2), in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The show cause notice was challenged
Decision
facts detailed in paragraphs-15 to 17 of the Writ Petition have not been denied by the State. Rather, casually it has been mentioned in paragraph-13 of the Counter that the averments made in paragraphs-14 to 17 need no reply as W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 6 of 15 the said facts amount to repetition of submissions made in the earlier paragraphs of the Writ Petition. Hence, it would be apt to extract below paragraphs-15 to 17 of the Writ Petition for ready reference:- OP.No.2 apparently “15. That in obedience of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court the petitioner served the copy of the same on the OP.No.2 whereafter a hearing was conducted by the OP.No.2 as the licensing authority whereafter recorded the statements/ deposition of the petitioner, one Smt Nitika Nayak MI then posted at Bisra, one Smt. Chandrika Sahoo ex-MI then working as ACSO Rairakhol, and is stated to have recorded the proceedings and passed an order which came to the knowledge of the petitioner when a letter No.4764 dated 02.11.2023 addressed to the learned Advocate General Odisha was served upon the petitioner. The aforesaid letter records that the order of cancellation of PDS License of the petitioner is not biased as per law and hence the order stands still. The stock register of the petitioner for the year 2019-20, 2020-21 and sale register of the petitioner for the month of April, May, June 2020 in original as well as details of hearing with copy of deposition were stated to be attached to such letter. A copy of letter No.4764 dated 02.11.2023 is and herewith filed marked as Annexure-7 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 7 of 15 16. That the aforesaid letter as above would reveal same is an communication made by the OP.No.2 who is also the licensing authority to the learned Advocate General showing compliance of order dated 17.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 29404 of 2021. communication That however after receipt of the 17. above the petitioner approached the office of OP.No.2 for a certified copy of order passed by the OP.No.2 dated 17.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 29404 of 2021 and pursuant thereto the office of OP.No.2 granted a copy of a purported hearing details of W.P.(C) No. 29404 of 2021. pursuant order to Certified copy of hearing details of W.P.(C) No. 29404 of 2021 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-8 kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” for (Emphasis supplied) 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the so called impugned order, as at Annexure-8, does not bear any date so also signature of the Licensing Authority and there is no such direction in the concluding part of the said order, ordering for cancellation of the P.D.S. license of the Petitioner. Only on receiving the copy of letter dated W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 8 of 15 02.11.2023, as at Annexure-7, which has been addressed to the Office of the learned Advocate General by the Additional District Magistrate, Rourkela, who is the Licensing Authority, the Petitioner came to know about the cancellation of her license and thereafter applied for certified copy of the alleged order. After getting the same, she has rightly approached this Court in form of the present Writ Petition, instead of preferring Appeal in terms of Clause-19 of the Control Order, 2016. 8. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that the said so called order passed by the Licensing Authority pursuant to the order dated 17.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.29404 of 2021, does not disclose the date of passing of such order so also signature of the licensing authority, who allegedly passed the said order. Apart from the same, there is no mention in the so called cancellation order as to cancellation of the P.D.S. license of the Petitioner making the said order appealable under Clause-19 of the Control Order, 2016. Rather, the forwarding letter dated 02.11.2023, as at Annexure-7, addressed to the Office of W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 9 of 15 the learned Advocate General indicates that the licensing authority communicated to the office of the learned Advocate General that the order of cancellation of the P.D.S. license of the Petitioner is not biased and as per law. Hence, this order stands still, which has already been set aside by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.29404 of 2021. The said communication sent to the Office of the learned Advocate General only indicates with regard to cancellation of P.D.S. license of the Petitioner and cannot be said to be an order to be impugned in the present Writ Petition. Being remediless, the Petitioner was being constrained to prefer the present Writ Petition. 9. In response to the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. S. Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the said order, as at Annexure-8, is appealable and in view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the Writ is not maintainable. She further submitted, even if there is no such pleadings, as W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 10 of 15 to alternative remedy in the Counter, the legal point can be raised at any stage of the proceeding. 10. Ms. Devi further submitted, apart from the said order as at Annexure-8, a separate order was passed on 12.05.2023 by the concerned authority, which was passed on basis of the order, as at Annexure-8. But inadvertently the said order could not be communicated to the Petitioner. Apart from that, the said fact also could not be disclosed in the Counter Affidavit filed by the State. 11. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the so called impugned order, as at Annexure-8 of the Writ Petition, which has also been annexed to the Counter filed by the State as Annexure-F, it is amply clear that there is no date of the said order allegedly passed by the competent Authority so also there is no seal and signature of the licensing Authority. Apart from that, the said order seems to be incomplete and there is no such observation regarding dealing with the reasons for coming to a W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 11 of 15 conclusion to cancel the P.D.S. license of the Petitioner so also cancellation of license enabling the Petitioner to prefer an Appeal in terms of Clause-19 of the Control Order, 2016. 12. Admittedly, the previous order dated 01.09.2021 cancelling the P.D.S. license of the Petitioner passed by the Licensing Authority, being challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.29404 of 2021, was set aside vide order dated 17.02.2023 and the matter was remitted back to the Licensing Authority to give due opportunity to the Petitioner and decide the matter afresh. Though it is not disputed by the Petitioner that being so directed, she was given further opportunity to have her further say in the said regard, but there is no such order in the order dated Nil, as at Annexure-8, indicating therein that the license of the Petitioner stood cancelled. Rather, the forwarding letter dated 02.11.2023, as at Annexure-7, which is annexed to the Counter as Annexure-F, also indicates that the Licensing Authority made a communication to the Office of the W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 12 of 15 learned Advocate General that the previous order, which was set aside by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.29404 of 2021 stands still. The operative portion of the said communication dated 02.11.2023, being relevant, is extracted below: to the obedience “In order dated 17.02.2023 in WP(C) case no.29404 of 2021 of the Hon’ble High court of Orissa, the petitioner was heard and all the documents were once again verified. On verifying, the sales and the stock register it was found that if the previous balance of stock was taken in consideration, then the shortfall would exceed from Q.13.25kg. hence the order of cancellation of the PDS licence of the Petitioner Smt. Sanjulata Pradhan is not biased as per law and hence this order stands still. The Stock Register of Smt. Sanjulata Pradhan for the year 2019-20, 2020-21 (in original) and the Sale Register of Smt. Sanjulata Pradhan for the month of April, May, June-2020 (in original) and the details of the hearing with the copy of the deposition of the parties are attached with this letter for your kind reference.” (Emphasis Supplied) 13. In view of the admitted facts on record and since there is no date and signature of the Licensing Authority and apart from that, the so called order does not disclose that the license of the Petitioner stood W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 13 of 15 cancelled rather, the forwarding letter addressed to the Office of the learned Advocate General indicates that the previous order, which was set aside by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29404 of 2021 stands still, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner has rightly approached this Court instead of preferring an Appeal in terms of Clause- 19 of the Control Order, 2016. 14. Accordingly, the so called cancellation order dated Nil, as at Annexure-8, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Opposite Party No.2 to rehear the matter and pass a detailed reasoned order giving further opportunity to the Petitioner, if so required, in accordance with the provisions enshrined under Clause- 17 of the Control Order, 2016 and re-determine the said issue regarding cancellation in accordance with law. 15. In order to avoid delay, it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the Licensing Authority on 27th January, 2025, at 11.00 A.M. On appearing so, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to fix the date of hearing and proceed further in accordance with the W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 14 of 15 provisions of the Control Order, 2016 and to conclude the said proceeding and pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of appearance and shall do well to communicate the outcome of the said proceeding to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of passing of the said order. 16. With the said observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, the 7th January, 2025/Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-Jan-2025 10:22:33 W.P.(C) No.3999 of 2024 Page 15 of 15