The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1333 of 2017 Pradeep Kumar Meher …. Petitioner Mr. P.K.Ray, Advocate -Versus- Director, SC & ST Development Department, Bhubaneswar & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Rout, AGA Mr. S.S. Tripathy, Advocate for O.P. No.5 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.05.2024 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party No. 1 to dispose of the proceeding in Misc. Certificate Appeal Case No. 2 of 2010, which has been referred to by order dated 7th June, 2011 (Annexure-3) and till such time, to keep in abeyance, the cancellation notice i.e. Annexure-4 issued by opposite party No.5.
Legal Reasoning
2. According to the petitioner, the appeal was filed by him before opposite party No.2 and the same has been referred to opposite party No.1 by letter dated 7th June, 2011 and pursuant to the decision on caste, it has led to the cancellation of empanelment for retail outlet dealership of petrol pump in his favour at a location in the district of Kalahandi by a decision of opposite party No.5. The pleading on record reveals that the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 1333 of 2017 Page 1 of 7 belongs to the Schedule Tribe community and pursuant to the advertisement for oil dealership at Junagarh in the district of Kalahandi, he had applied for the same on 22nd October, 2009 and after scrutiny, was successfully selected for the said outlet and in so far as the opposite party No.6 is concerned, he was one of the applicants and in fact, had lodged a complaint questioning the genuineness of his Caste Certificate. On the basis of such a complaint, as it is further pleaded by the petitioner, opposite party No.2 directed opposite party No.4 to verify the Caste Certificate and furnish a report and after the said direction, Revenue Supervisor submitted the report and then, opposite party No.4 by order dated 12th October, 2010 erroneously reached at a conclusion that he is of ‘Kuli’ caste which is not in the list of ST and hence, the Caste Certificate issued in his favour in Revenue Misc. Case No. 181871 of 2009 was cancelled vide Annexure-1 and it was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 18575 of 2010. It is pleaded that the petitioner filed an appeal before opposite party No.2 and it was referred to opposite party No.1 to take decision thereon. As per the petitioner, the appeal is pending disposal but in the meanwhile, opposite party No.5 issued a letter to him stating therein about the empanelment for the outlet to have been cancelled. The petitioner claims that opposite party No.4 passed the order of cancellation without proper application of judicial mind and at the same time, the appeal is pending before opposite party No.1 since long. It is lastly submitted that the cancellation of the outlet by opposite party No.5 vide Annexure-4 is illegal pending decision in appeal. W.P.(C) No. 1333 of 2017 Page 2 of 7 3. In reply, opposite party No.5 filed an affidavit dated 16th November, 2023 stating therein that by order dated 23rd December, 2016, the petitioner’s empanelment for retail outlet dealership of a petrol pump was cancelled and later to such cancellation, the next eligible candidate, namely, opposite party No.6 was selected and was issued with the Letter of Intent (LoI) (Annexure A/5) upon fulfilling the criteria followed by a letter of appointment (Annexure-B/5) issued in his favour as a dealer for the site at Junagarh. It is further submitted that the dealership agreement (Annexure-C/5) has been executed with opposite party No. 6 and the outlet is operational in the name and style of M/s. Sidhant Fuel offering services to the public and in the light of the above facts, the matter has become infructuous. 4. The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner is perused.
Legal Reasoning
5. Heard Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.5. 6. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner citing the decisions in Meghamala Vrs. G. Narasingha Reddy MANU/SC/0608/2010; Union Territory of Ladakh & others Vrs. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference & another (Civil Appeal No.5707 of 2023); Indore Development Authority Vrs. Shailendra(dead) through LRs. & others (2018) SCC 412; State of Orissa Vrs. Dasarthi Meher MANU/SC/1091/2018; Sebaram Meher Vrs. The State of Orissa & others MANU/OR/0286/1984; Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd. Vrs. The State of Maharashtra & others SLP(C) W.P.(C) No. 1333 of 2017 Page 3 of 7 No.9913/2022 submits that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kuli’ community and hence, a Schedule Tribe in view of the Presidential Order and furthermore, there has been fraud and misrepresentation from the side of opposite party No.6 and in such view of the matter, opposite party No.4 could not have cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to him followed by cancellation of the dealership by opposite party No.5. It is claimed that challenging such cancellation, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 18575 of 2010, wherein, an interim order with respect to the selection process was passed by this Court. Mr. Ray would further submit that not only the cancellation of Caste Certificate is unjust and illegal but also the cancellation of dealership and grant of such dealership in favour of opposite party No.6. The contention of Mr. Ray is that till such time, the
Decision
appeal is disposed of, opposite party No.5 cannot and could not have allowed dealership in favour of opposite party No.6. The further contention is that a direction is required to be issued to opposite party No.1 to dispose of the appeal pending since 2010 with consequential directions issued. 7. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 referring to the Court’s order dated 18th October, 2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 18575 of 2010 and the affidavit dated 16th November, 2023 claims that the application for dealership in favour of the petitioner was declared void and such empanelment was accordingly cancelled as per the policy of the Corporation. W.P.(C) No. 1333 of 2017 Page 4 of 7 8. No reply is filed by the State. Opposite party No.5 referring to the affidavit on record submits that dealership of the outlet is already assigned to opposite party No.6 after a decision in 2016. 9. In fact, subsequent to the disposal of W.P. (C) No. 18575 of 2010, as claimed by opposite party No.5, the application of the petitioner for dealership was declared void with the cancellation of empanelment with an intimation (Annexure-4) to him in that regard on 23rd December, 2016. 10. So far as the caste of the petitioner is concerned, the claim is that he is a ST and belongs to ‘Kuli’ community. But such claim of the petitioner with a complaint lodged by opposite party No.6 followed by an enquiry revealed it otherwise and hence, opposite party No.4 cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to him. As to what was the nature of enquiry held by opposite party No. 4 or for that matter, the Revenue Supervisor is to be gone through and duly examined in the appeal pending before opposite party No.1. The fate on dealership vis-à-vis the petitioner was depending on the caste of the petitioner, whether, to be a Schedule Tribe or not and during enquiry, it could not be ascertained and the Caste Certificate issued to him was hence cancelled by opposite party No.4. The Court finds that in absence of any final order of restraint, opposite party No.5 appears to have allowed the retail dealership in favour of opposite party No.6. As per the affidavit dated 16th November, 2023 of opposite party No.5, LoI and appointment letter dated 30th December, 2016 were issued in favour of opposite party No.6, who is running the retail outlet on execution of a dealership agreement (Annexure-C/5). W.P.(C) No. 1333 of 2017 Page 5 of 7 11. Considering the above facts and as in the meantime, the dealership is with opposite party No.6, in absence of any order against such dealership, opposite party No.5 has entered into an agreement with him almost eight years back. With the aforesaid development having taken place after cancellation of Caste Certificate and dealership and as the outlet dealership is operational from 2016 run by opposite party No.6, the demand to keep the cancelation notice in abeyance has lost its relevance, rather, such a relief has really become infructuous, if technically speaking. Nevertheless, the petitioner since has challenged the cancellation of Caste Certificate, it is for him to pursue the appeal pending before opposite party No.1. Such cancellation of Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and a decision on dealership allowed in favour of opposite party No.6 is a development, in a way, dissuades the Court to keep alive the dispute over dealership till disposal of the appeal filed by him but at the same time, considering the plea of the petitioner that he is a Schedule Tribe with issuance of Caste Certificate initially by opposite party No.4 and subsequent cancellation to be illegal, it needs examination and scrutiny by opposite party No.1 at the earliest and in that regard, a direction is required to be issued. In such view of the matter, as the appeal is to be decided on merit, the Court has refrained itself from discussing the case laws placed reliance on from the side of the petitioner, an exercise which is expected to be undertaken by opposite party No.1. 12. Hence, it is ordered. W.P.(C) No. 1333 of 2017 Page 6 of 7 13. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.1 to ensure early hearing and disposal of the proceeding in Misc. Certificate Appeal Case No. 2 of 2010 leaving it open for opposite party No.5 to take a call on the plea of dealership, if in case the policy of the Corporation allows it, which shall of course be later to the result in appeal filed by the petitioner. It is further directed that such disposal of appeal pending since 2010 shall be accomplished as soon as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order keeping in view the settled legal position governing the field. kabita (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 21-May-2024 15:04:54 W.P.(C) No. 1333 of 2017 Page 7 of 7