Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Swopnajit Mohapatra ....... Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & others ....... Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. B.C. Ghadei, Advocate For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. A. Behera, Addl. Standing Counsel For Opp. Party No.6 : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing: 20.02.2024 Date of Judgment: 24.06.2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. The Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the legality and correctness of order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Appeal No.25 of 2023 setting aside the order of PDS license, issued by the Sub- Collector, Jajpur, in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 29.12.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.03 of 2022. 2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of the Writ Petition, are that pursuant to the Advertisement No.292 dated 07.08.2021 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Sub-Collector, Jajpur, the Petitioner, being an unemployed person, applied for PDS license for his appointment as a Retailer of Jagulaigadia Retail Centre under Mukundapur G.P, as his place of retail business in the district of Jajpur (vide Plot No. 594, Khata No. 103, Kisam- Gharabari, Area of Ac.0.05 dec.) for the year 2022. He also deposited License Fee on 29.03.2022 vide DD NO. 233790. After verifying all the relevant papers, the Sub-Collector- cum-Licensing Authority granted license in favour of the Petitioner vide Order No.97 dated 18.01.2023 and he was allowed to function as PDS Retailer in the above mentioned place with immediate effect. While allowing so, a condition was imposed to the effect that the Petitioner has no objection for termination from the PDS business at any moment, if any application is received in future from any Institution such as WSHG, SHG, GP, and Cooperative Society for the said purpose. 3. One Amiyabala Das (Opposite Party No.6), who is the Secretary of Jagulai WSHG, preferred W.P.(C) No. 40906 of 2021 for quashing of the said selection process pursuant to the W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 2 of 24 advertisement dated 07.08.2021, which was disposed of on 09.11.2022 along with W.P.(C) No. 10748 of 2022 with a direction to Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Sub-Collector, Jajpur to dispose of the representation of Opposite Party No.6 within four weeks with a
Legal Reasoning
speaking order after giving due opportunity to the parties. As per the said direction, after hearing the parties, Opposite Party No.3 rejected the same. The Opposite Party No.6 again preferred W.P.(C) No. 2368 of 2023 against the order of license issued in favour of the Petitioner and the same was dismissed on 30.01.2023 with an observation that the said order is appealable one. 4. It was alleged by the Opposite Party No.6 before Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Sub-Collector and Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Collector, Jajpur, that the Petitioner is the son of one Mayadhar Mohapatra, who belongs to a BPL category family and was found guilty of availing AAY card in the name of his daughter and wife during his Retailership of Jaguliagadia Retail Centre. Thus, it was prayed that the Petitioner shall not be granted the license. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Retailership license of his father Mayadhar Mohapatra was suspended and the W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 3 of 24 entire cost of the PDS commodities availed by AAY card holders was also deposited by his father and his father being a PDS license holder, has not misappropriated the PDS stock without distributing the same to the consumers. It is further case of the Petitioner that, he remains in a separate mess from his father long before the cancellation of the PDS license issued in favour of his father Mayadhar Mohapatra. To substantiate the said stand, the Petitioner also produced the Panchayat Faisala regarding the separation of the family before Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Sub-Collector, Jajpur, who, after verifying all the required documents and provisions of law, found that the Petitioner has fulfilled all the requisite criteria for grant of PDS license and issued the same in his favour. It is the stand of the Petitioner that a large number of people of Jagulaigadia PDS Centre had given written application for grant of PDS license to him. His name was also recommended by the Village Committee and Enquiry Report of ACSO, Jajpur and I.S., Korei Block, dated 15.12.2021 is also in his favour. It is also the case of the Petitioner that, the Collector, Jajpur, failed to appreciate the fact that the father and son are not the same person and the Petitioner obtained the license by his W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 4 of 24 individual capacity having all requisite qualifications and fulfilling all legal requirements, without being recommended by his father.
Decision
It has been stated in the Writ Petition that pursuant to the Advertisement No.292 dated 07.08.2021 published by Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Sub-Collector, Jajpur, the Opposite Party No.6 never applied for Jagulaigadia Retail Centre as per the said advertisement. Rather, she applied for Biridi Retail Centre which has not been published in the Advertisement, which is well revealed from the Order of the Sub-Collector, Jajpur dated 29.12.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.03/2022. 5. Being noticed, the Opposite Party No.6 has filed Counter Affidavit opposing the prayer made in the Writ Petition. It is the stand of the Opposite Party No.6 that the father of the Petitioner namely, Mr. Mayadhar Mahapatra obtained AAY Ration Card vide card No.1308141617, so also his wife, Padmabati Mohapatra, obtained another card vide card No.1308141164 for the last one year. An enquiry was made by the Addl. Civil Supply Officer. On 05.08.2020 the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Sub-Collector, Jajpur, visited the Retail Outlet of Mayadhar Mohapatra at Jagulaigadia. During his interaction with Mayadhar Mohapatra it was found that his family is availing two numbers of AAY cards, W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 5 of 24 one is in the name of his wife another in the name of his daughter. He also stated that he has availed a house under Indira Awash Yojana(IAY) in the name of his wife as the poorest family. Apart from all these, both Mayadhar Mohapatra and his wife are also getting pension under SOAP (State Old Age Pension) from Makundapur GP. During enquiry it was also found that one ration card has also been issued in the name of his daughter Miss Rachana Mahaptra. The father of the Petitioner is continuing PDS business since last 18 years. Thus the family cannot be facilitated with both the benefits meant for BPL family card and AAY card and hence, he was suspended. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 published a fresh notification vide letter No.292 dated 07.08.2021 to fill up the Retailer vacancy for which both the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.6 applied for the post of Retailer of centre Jagulaigadia. The Opposite Party No.6 had all the essential qualifications and he annexed proper documents after proper scrutiny. As per the notification, the candidate should be inhabitant of the said G.P. which is clearly reflected in the notice as at Annexure-B/2 of the Counter Affidavit. Thereafter, the process of selection of PDS Retailer continued by the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Sub-Collector, Jajpur, and the candidates, who were considered, were listed in the notice dated 04.10.2021 and W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 6 of 24 complaints/objections were invited by the Authority regarding the said selection. On 10.11.2021 the Opposite Party No.6 also filed a representation before the Opposite Party No.3 vide Diary No.2578 which is still pending for consideration. It is the further stand of the Opposite Party No.6 that how the Authority concerned is going to select the Petitioner, who belongs to a poor family having three numbers of ration cards in the name of his family members and action has also been taken against the Ex-Retailer Mr. Mayadhar Mohapatra. The Petitioner, being his son, is going to be selected by the Opposite Party No.3. It is further stand of Opposite Party No.6 that, publishing the name of the Petitioner in daily Sambad on 07.11.2021 that Govt. is interested to appoint the son of Ex-Retailer as the Retailer in Jagulaigadia Centre is not only illegal and arbitrary, but also in violation of the conditions as per the notification as at Annexure- B/2 of the Counter Affidavit. It has further been stated by the Opposite Party No.6 in her Counter that the Jagulaigadia Centre is in the G.P. Makundapur under Korai Block in Jajpur district and is constituted by two revenue villages i.e. Biridi and Jagulaigadia, for which the name of Centre is Jagulaigadia. Thus, W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 7 of 24 the persons, who will be selected, should be the candidate of the said G.P. as per the said notification. While the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.6 filed W.P.(C) No.40906 of 2021 before this Court seeking direction to accept her application as well as to quash the selection process and to appoint her as the Retailer of Jagulaigadia Retail Centre, which was disposed of on 09.11.2021 with a direction to Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of Opposite Party No.6. But the Opposite Party No.3 rejected the same vide order dated 29.12.2022. Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party No.6 filed W.P. (C) No. 2368 of 2023 which was disposed of on 30.01.2023 granting liberty to Opposite Party No.6 to approach the Appellate Authority. Pursuant to the said order, the Opposite Party No.6 preferred Misc. Appeal No.25/2023 with a prayer to quash the said selection process. A stand has also been taken by the Opposite Party No.6 in the Counter that, the claim of the Petitioner that he has been staying separately from his father since 2017 having separate mess with his wife and children is false and frivolous, as there is no separate house for the separate family for the last six years from the date of alleged separation. It has been stated by the W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 8 of 24 Opposite Party No.6 that, since the Petitioner is not married, he has no wife and children. Therefore, his claim regarding separation in Panchayatnama cannot be a legal document and reliable as in the said Panchayatnama no such conditions of separation has been indicated. The Opposite Party No.6 questioned about the authenticity of such Panchayatnama on the ground that how a Panchayatnama can be admitted in presence of only four persons. It has further been stated in the Counter that, as per Clause-5 of notification dated 07.08.2021 it has been clearly stated that, the applicant should be financially sound. However, the Petitioner and his father were working as labourers and getting benefits of job card along with sister Rachana under the MNRGES Scheme till 17.11.2021, which is a clear violation of Clause-5 of the notification. Further, Clause-9 says that, if any relation of the Applicant has been removed on the ground of misappropriation of PDS Commodities, then his application shall be rejected. As the father of the Petitioner has been removed before, the Petitioner is not qualified as per Clause-9 of the said Circular. It is further stand of the Opposite Party No.6 that as Jagulaigadia is a part of village Biridi as per recent voter list, the W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 9 of 24 candidature of Opposite Party No.6 does not deserve to be rejected. 6. The State-Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 have also filed Counter Affidavit denying the allegations made in the Writ Petition and in support of the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Collector, Jajpur, it has been stated in the Counter that the Collector, Jajpur, after proper verification of Point Nos.5 & 9 of the advertisement dated 07.08.2021 issued by the Sub- Collector, Jajpur, and based on the alleged documents regarding the separation of the Petitioner from his father, has rightly set aside the order of the Sub-Collector, Jajpur, and there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed in Misc. Appeal No.25 of 2023. It has also been stated in the Counter that the father of the Petitioner has misappropriated PDS commodities by availing 2 Nos. of Antodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) cards, one for his daughter and another for his wife. It has also been stated in the Counter that though the recommendation of the villagers of Jagulaigadia and report of the ACSO, Jajpur & I.S., Korei Block were in favour of the Petitioner, the separation documents produced by the Petitioner to be appointed as Retailer in place of his father lacks merit for consideration, as the same is not a legal W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 10 of 24 document. A stand has also been taken in the Counter filed by the State that the terms of advertisement made vide letter dated 07.8.2021 were overlooked during appointment of the Petitioner as Retailer for Jagulaigadia Retail Centre. 7. In response to the Counters filed by the State/Opposite Parties so also private Respondent No.6, the Petitioner has filed a common Rejoinder Affidavit. The sum and substance of the said Rejoinder Affidavit is that, the stand taken by the State in its Counter is contrary to its earlier Counter filed in W.P.(C) No.40906 of 2021, which has been annexed to the Rejoinder Affidavit as Annexure-5. That apart, it has been stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that though the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed in Misc. (Appeal) No.25/2023 disbelieved the family separation document, but no explanation has been tendered vide the said order as to why the said document was disbelieved. It has also been stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that on bare perusal of the application submitted by the present Opposite Party No.6, which is appended to the Counter Affidavit, it is clear that she has not applied for getting PDS retail license for Jagulaigadia PDS Retail Centre, rather she applied for Biridi Centre. It has further been stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 11 of 24 that it is amply clear from the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Jajpur dated 29.12.2022 that the father of the Petitioner was not disqualified on the ground of mis-appropriation of PDS commodities. Rather, father of the Petitioner surrendered the benefits of AAY cards and also paid the entire cost of the PDS commodities, which was received by him and the Petitioner is living in a separate mess from his father and family since 2017 as per the Panchayat Faisala made between them. 8. Reiterating the averments made in the Writ Petition, Mr. Ghadei, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Collector, Jajpur, who is the Appellate Authority, failed to appreciate that the Opposite Party No.6 never applied for Jagulaigadia Retail Centre as per the advertisement and she had applied for Biridi Retail Centre for which there was no advertisement and the said fact is well revealed from the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Sub-Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No.03/2022 as at Annexure-4 of the Writ Petition. Mr. Ghadei further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal as he did not rely on the separation deed filed by the Petitioner and failed to appreciate that the father and son have been separated since 2017 and the Petitioner has obtained the license in his individual capacity, having all W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 12 of 24 requisites qualification and fulfilling all the legal requirements to get the said license. He further submitted, the Collector, Jajpur, without making any proper enquiry, only basing upon the statement of Opposite Party No.6 has cancelled the license of the Petitioner, which is valid for one year from the date of renewal. Hence, cancellation of license of the Petitioner not only prejudiced the Petitioner, as it will hamper his right to life, it being his only source of income, but also will affect a lot to the Jagulaigadia PDS Centre. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the Counter filed by the State so also earlier Writ Petition preferred by the present Opposite Party No.6 i.e. W.P.(C) No.40906 of 2021, submitted that in the said Writ Petition, a specific stand was taken by the State/Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 in the said Counter that after cancellation of license of the Retailer namely, Mayadhar Mohapatra, who is the father of the present Petitioner, a fresh notification was published on 07.08.2021 for issuance of PDS license in the vacant place i.e. Jagulaigadia Retail Centre under Mukundapur GP. The Petitioner applied in the prescribed form on 21.08.2021 for appointment as a Retailer and the present Opposite Party No.6, who was the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.40906 of 2021, also applied on 21.08.2021 for her W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 13 of 24 appointment as Retailer at Biridihi village instead of notified centre at Jagulaigadia, for which her application could not be considered. After receiving an Objection from the present Opposite Party No.6 on 10.11.2021, a joint inquiry was conducted by the ACSO, Jajpur and Inspector of Supplies, Korei and Report dated 22.12.2021 was submitted to the Sub-Collector, Jajpur, and thereafter a view was also called from the BDO, Korei, in the said regard. Based on the said Report of the Committee so also Report submitted by the BDO, Korei, the Licensing Authority, being satisfied that there is no objection in the event the Petitioner is appointed as a Retailer in Jagulaigadia Retail Centre, selected the Petitioner to be appointed as Retailer for Jagulaigadia Retail Centre. The Counter filed by the State in the present case, being contrary to the previous stand in W.P.(C) No.40906 of 2021, is bad and not acceptable. 10. Mr. A. Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, reiterating the stand taken in the Counter, submitted that since the Sub-Collector, Jajpur (Opposite Party No.3), who is the Licensing Authority, failed to take note of Clause 5 & 9 of the Advertisement and relied on the Report submitted by the ACSO, Jajpur and Inspector of Supplies, Korei, the Appellate Authority was justified to allow the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 14 of 24 No.6, thereby ordered for cancellation of retail license issued in favour of the Petitioner. Mr. Behera further submitted that the Appellate Authority was justified to observe vide the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 that the documents submitted by the present Petitioner (Respondent No.5 in the said Appeal) to prove his separation from his father namely, Mayadhar Mohapatra, is not a legal document. Accordingly, it ordered for setting aside the order of the Sub-Collector, Jajpur dated 29.12.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.03 of 2022, further ordering therein that the Sub- Collector, Jajpur, is to take appropriate steps for appointment of PDS Retailer in Jagulaigadia Retail Centre afresh as per the provisions of PDS Guidelines, after proper verification of legal documents. 11. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the private Opposite Party No.6, apart from reiterating the stand taken in the Counter, more specifically drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph Nos.15 to 18 submitted that though a Rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner, but the averments made in paragraph Nos.15 to 18 of the Counter filed by the Opposite Party No.6 have neither been specifically dealt with nor denied in the Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner. Hence, it is amply clear from the averments made in paragraph Nos.15 to 18 of the Counter that the Petitioner W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 15 of 24 was not financially sound to be appointed as a Retailer. The Petitioner is unmarried as per the documents obtained by the Opposite Party No.6 under the RTI Act, which have been appended to the Counter as Annexure-A/1. As per the statement of his father recorded on 05.08.2020, the Petitioner is residing with him. Both the Petitioner and his father are the beneficiaries of Job Card along with his sister under the MNRGES Scheme. Both the Petitioner and his father were working as labourers till 17.11.2021. The same being in violation of Clause 5 & Clause 9 and his father’s license to deal with the PDS commodities being cancelled on the ground of misappropriation of PDS commodities and such admitted facts on record being contrary to the Clauses 5 & Clause 9 of the Advertisement made for appointment of PDS Retailer, the Collector, Jajpur (Appellate Authority) was justified to pass the impugned order. He further submitted that in the Rejoinder the Petitioner has also not denied the said specific averments made by the Opposite Party No.6 in her Counter. 12. To substantiate his submission, Mr. A.P Bose, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.6 , relied on the judgments of the apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs & Others, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 16 of 24 and K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority Of India Limited and Others, reported in (2008) SCC OnLine SC 1025. 13. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra), the apex Court vide Paragraph 5, held as follows: “5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” (Emphasis supplied) In K.D. Sharma (supra), the apex Court vide Paragraphs 34 and 36, held as follows; “34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of is extraordinary, equitable and the Constitution discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 17 of 24 that concealing or of utmost necessity the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 26. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done". The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to extract below paragraph Nos.15 to 18 of the Counter filed by the Opposite Party No.6 for ready reference:- “15. That as per the notification B/2 dated 07u.08j.2021 clause -5, it is clearly mentioned that the applicant should be financially ’sound an relations of the applicant should not have been terminated of any dealership ’license. A copy of such notification is annexed herewith as Annexure-H/8. W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 18 of 24 16. That this stand taken by the petitioner that he is living separately from his father, since 2017 is not correct. The evidence of the father/ former Retailer stated that his sole unmarried son aged about 24 years is residing with him. This statement was recorded on05.08.2020 which can be seen from Annexure-A/1. 17. That the application under Annexure -H/8 clearly states that the applicant should be financially sound. The advertisement was made on 07.08.2021 ’and till 17.11.2021, the petitioner and his father were getting benefits of job card along with sister Rachana under the MNRGES Scheme. Copy of the ’document is annexed herewith as Annexure-1/9. 18. That if the petitioner as well as his father are working as labourers till 17.11.2021, then this is clear violation of clause -5 of Annexure-H/8. Clause -9 clearly states that if any relations of the applicants have been removed on the ground of misappropriation of PDS commodities which is a real fact in the case of the father of the petitioner, then the very application is to be rejected. The petitioner is thus not qualified under clause -5 and 9 of Annexure -H/8.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. As is further revealed from the common Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner in response to the Counters filed by the State so also Opposite Party No.6, despite such specific averments made by W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 19 of 24 the Opposite Party No.6, coupled with documentary evidences obtained by her under the RTI Act, the Petitioner has not denied or disputed the said averments, more particularly to the averments made as to the statement given by the father of the Petitioner before the Assist Civil Supplied Officer regarding their residing under the same roof. 16. That apart, from the advertisement for appointment of a Retailer, which has been annexed to the Counter filed by the State as Annexure-A/3, it is amply clear from Clause - 5 of the said advertisement that the Applicant must be financially sound. Similarly, as per Clause - 9 of the said advertisement, if the Applicant or his/her family member was a retail license holder and his license to deal with PDS commodities has been cancelled because of mis-appropriation, such application shall not be taken into consideration. 17. As is revealed from the Report, as at Annexure-A/1, the Additional CSO, Jajpur, submitted a Report on 05.08.2020 to the Sub-Collector, Jajpur (the Licensing Authority), pursuant to which the license of Mayadhar Mohapatra, who is the father of the Petitioner, to act as a Retailer got cancelled. The said report being relevant, is extracted below for ready reference:- W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 20 of 24 “To The Sub-Collector, Jajpur. Sub: Submission of Interim Inquiry Report on the complaint petition filed by Sri Bira Kishore Das & others villagers of Biridih. Ref: Complaint petition vide No- Nil dt. 25/07/20 of villagers, Biridih and letter No. 2507 dt. 29/07/20 of BDO, Korai. Sir, In response to your kind order I started the field Inquiry from 28/07/2020 to bring out the real fact on distribution of essential commodities by Sri Mayadhar Mohapatra, Retailer of Jagulaigadia under Mukundapur G.P. At first I contacted to petitioners of Biridhi village and discussed about the complaint, they stated that Sri Mayadhara Mohapatra, Retailer of Jagulaigadia has taken the two numbers of AAY Ration cards in his family & one AAY Ration card in his cousin with help of Inspector Supplies Korai to misappropriate the Essential commodities. They also put their demands before me to conduct an enquiry properly about 6 nos of AAY ration cards and 12 nos of SFSS ration cards issued by the Block Administration, Korai. Statement copy of villagers is enclosed here with for reference. On 05-08-20 1 visited the retail outlet of Sri Mayadhara Mohapatra Jagulaigadia to verify the stock of EC with reference to books of A/C & records on transaction of essential commodities in the period of his Retailership. The available stock was found as follows: 1. Rice -Q223.97 in 450 bags. 2. S.K Oil -240 ltrs. in 2 barrels. 3. Wheat - Nil. W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 21 of 24 bearing Padmabati Mohapatra In interaction with Sri Mohapatra Retailer, it came to light that his family is availing two numbers of AAY cards, one in the name of his wife Smt. No 1308141164 from last one year and another AAY card in the name of his daughter Miss Rachana Mohapatra bearing No 1308141617 from last 5/6 months and getting all subsidized benifits provided by the Govt. to the card holders. He stated that his family has been availed the IAY house in the name of his wife as the poorest family. It also came to know that both Sri Mayadhara Mohapatra and his wife Smt. Padmabati Mohapatra are availing pension under SOAP scheme (i.e. State Old Aged Pension) from Mukundapur GP. Statement copy of Retailer is enclosed here with for reference. During my enquiry, it noticed that Sri Mayadhara Mohapatra has cleverly taken two AAY ration cards in suppressing the information of his family. If his family is eligible to get the benefits of Govt subsidized schemes as the poor family or Below Poverty Line (BPL) family, he may be allowed to avail these benefits Apart from that Sri Mayadhara Mahapatra is dealing with the PDS Business since last 18 years. renewal of PDS As per Govt. rules "In appointment of the Retailer or applicant/Retailer financial resources to run a retail fair price shop and has suitable premises for functioning of the retail shop with others facilities". adequate license, has As availing of such benefits, it clearly proved that his family is covered under BPL & he may be availed one ration card under the Act/Scheme of NSFA (AAY/PHH) or SFSS which means for one family only. So the AAY ration card issued in favour of Miss Rachana Mahapatra daughter of Mayadhara Mohapatra is required to cancel. Secondly as he is the member and head of the BPL family he cannot be allowed to run the W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 22 of 24 PDS business as per the provisions of Govt. One family cannot be facilitated to avail both benefits meant for APL family or BIPL family at time". Under above circumstances I placed the following suggestion before the Licensing Authority of PDS Retailers for taking into consideration. Suggestion 1. The dealership of Mayadhara Mohapatra, Jagulaigadia may kindly be suspended. 2. The BDO, Korai may be requested to cancel the AAY ration card issued earlier in name of Miss Rachana Mahapatra daughter of Mayadhara Mahapatra. 3. The time period may be extended to submit the final report after conducting of detail enquiry in this regards. This is your kind action & necessary action. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Prahlad Ch. Sethy) Addl. CSO, Jajpur” (Emphasis supplied) 18. From the said Report so also other documents available on record, as well as pleadings of the parties as detailed above, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner being the son of Mayadhar Mohapatra, whose retail license was cancelled because of various irregularities as detailed above and being a unmarried person and residing under the same roof, as per the statement of W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 23 of 24 his father, was ineligible to apply for his appointment as a PDS Retailer. In view of the specific bar under the said Advertisement his application for appointment as a Retailer for Jagulaigadia Centre should not have been taken into consideration by the Licensing Authority and such license has been obtained by the Petitioner by making false statements and suppressing material facts. This Court is of further view that the Collector, Jajpur (Opposite Party No.3-Appellate Authority) rightly disbelieved the document produced by the Petitioner with regard to his alleged separation from his father and residing separately under a separate roof. This Court is also of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority in Misc. (Appeal) No.25 of 2023 and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. ….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:54:53 Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 24th June, 2024/Kanhu W.P.(C) No.11208 of 2023 Page 24 of 24