The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Sk. Riasatulla ....... Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & others ....... Opp. Parties Advocate for the parties For Petitioner : Mr. L. Dash, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K. Parhi, Addl. Standing Counsel ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date of Judgment: 28.02.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, who is a P.D.S. Retailer, challenging the order of suspension dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Sub- Collector & Licensing Authority, Sadar, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.3) so also the Order dated 19.06.2024 passed in P.D.S (Appeal) No.11 of 2023, vide which the Collector, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2), being the Appellate Authority, refused to revoke the order of Suspension dated 22.02.2023. 2. The factual matrix of the case, as stated in the Writ Petition, is that the Petitioner is functioning as PDS Retailer at Batapur under Nandol Gram Panchayat in Salipur, Block, Cuttack for about last 30 years without any complaint. The PDS license of the Petitioner was valid till 31.03.2023. However, on 28.12.2022, the Petitioner received a show cause notice from Opposite Party No.3 alleging some minor irregularities against the Petitioner, asking him to file reply within seven days. On 30.12.2022, the Petitioner filed an application before the Opposite Party No.3 seeking for time to file reply along with a medical certificate. Thereafter, though the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.3 to supply him the documents relating to allegations levelled against him, no document was supplied to the Petitioner to file his show cause. Further, on 22.02.2023 (wrongly typed W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 2 of 28 as 02.02.2023) the order of suspension was passed against the Petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal challenging the said order dated 22.02.2023 before the Opposite Party No.2 in P.D.S (Appeal) No.11 of 2023. The said order was also upheld by the Opposite Party No.2 vide order dated 19.06.2024. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. This writ petition has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the Opposite Party No.3 passed the order of suspension relying on some documents, which were not supplied to the Petitioner so also without disclosing about the report submitted by the Marketing Inspector, Salipur as well as the report of the Block Development Officer, Salipur regarding allegations of irregularities committed by the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that, after passing of the suspension order, an application was filed by the consumers of the Petitioner unanimously before the Opposite Party No.3 on W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 3 of 28 13.02.2023 stating about the innocence of the Petitioner so also the allegations levelled against him to be baseless. 4. It is further case of the Petitioner that, the allegations levelled against him, are made on political consideration to oust him from PDS channel. Further, neither any document was supplied to the Petitioner along with show cause notice nor on demand made by the Petitioner to rebut the allegations. Moreover, the Order of suspension was passed by the Opposite Party No.3 without following due procedure so also without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 5. Further, the Opposite Party No.2 also passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2014 relying on the unsupplied documents so also without assigning any reason regarding such non-supply of documents to the Petitioner and also without dealing with the point regarding providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing the Order of suspension. The Petitioner was kept in dark about the real allegations W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 4 of 28 levelled against him. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 6. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the State- Opposite Parties stating therein that the Opposite Party No.3 (Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack) made an enquiry on the allegation made against the Petitioner. After receiving the Enquiry Report, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 28.12.2022. The Petitioner submitted an application seeking two weeks’ time to file show cause on the ground that he is suffering from Ameobic colitis & Lumbago, for which the treating Physician advised him to take rest for two weeks. Subsequently, in absence of any reply from the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.3 suspended the license of the Petitioner vide order dated
Legal Reasoning
22.02.2023, which was challenged by him in P.D.S (Appeal) No.11 of 2023 before the Opposite Party No.2 on the ground that though the Opposite Party No.3 received his application along with the medical report for time to file show cause reply, his licence was suspended vide order dated 22.02.2023 without considering the W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 5 of 28 application so also the medical report. However, the Opposite Party No.2, after going through the submissions of the parties and the LCR/documents relating to the suspension order, rejected the Appeal and pronounced the order on 19.06.2024. 7. It is the stand of the State-Opposite Parties that, an allegation petition was made by some of the consumers of the locality alleging gross irregularities in the PDS supply against the Petitioner. An enforcement squad visited the retail point of the Petitioner and found certain irregularities committed by the Petitioner, which is evident from the report dated 23.12.2022 prepared and submitted by the enforcement squad. It is further stand of the Opposite Parties that, the Opposite Party No.3, basing upon the investigation report dated 23.12.2022, pointing out some irregularities asked the Petitioner to submit reply within seven days, failing which, it was warned to take proper action against him. A request was also made to the B.D.O, Salipur to instruct the Inspector of Supplies of the Block to conduct an enquiry at the PDS W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 6 of 28 Centre of the Petitioner and submit a report. An enquiry was conducted and a comprehensive report was submitted by the Marketing Inspector, Salipur illustrating certain irregularities in distribution system on the basis of which the license of the Petitioner was suspended vide order dated 22.02.2023. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Opposite Party No.2 vide P.D.S (Appeal) No.11 of 2023 on the question as to whether he has been heard by the Opposite Party No.3 before passing the order of suspension. Though the Petitioner prayed for documents before the Opposite Party No.3, he did not turn up to collect the same. 8. In response to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has filed a Rejoinder Affidavit stating therein that the Show Cause Notice dated 28.12.2022 issued by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack as well as the report of the Marketing Inspector at Annexure-D do not contain the date and time of the verification, which allegedly took place at the Depot of the Petitioner. The Petitioner also questioned about the W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 7 of 28 possibility of the Inspecting Authority scrutinizing the stock and the missing price declaration board, if his shop was closed, as alleged by the Opposite Parties. Further, the Petitioner also denied the allegation with regard to charging of Rs.2/- to Rs.3/- excess price per litre of K.Oil from Ration Card beneficiaries relying on the joint representation made by consumers about his innocence at Annexure-6. Further, it is the case of the Petitioner that in Para-10 of the Counter it has been admitted that he appeared before the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack in person and prayed for the document, but allegedly did not turn up to collect the documents. Since the show cause notice was not clear about the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner; he was not in a position to file reply for want of documents. Hence, he preferred the P.D.S (Appeal) No.11 of 2023 before the Opposite Party No.2 praying for providing opportunity of hearing before passing the order of suspension. 9. It is the case of the Petitioner that while passing the order of suspension, the Sub-Collector, W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 8 of 28 Sadar, Cuttack relied on some documents, which were not supplied to the Petitioner. Nothing about the Report submitted by the Marketing Inspector, Salipur Block and Report of the Block Development Officer, Salipur, containing the allegation of irregularities committed by the Petitioner, were disclosed to him. The order passed by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack was without providing the copies of such documents to the Petitioner enabling him to rebut the allegations. It is further case of the Petitioner that the Collector, Cuttack, in an unilateral manner, passed the order of rejection refusing to revoke the suspension order of PDS license of the Petitioner, specially relying on the documents supplied by the Marketing Inspector and Block Development Officer. It is the case of the Petitioner that soon after the order of suspension was passed, the Consumers of the Petitioner held a meeting and unanimously filed an application before the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack on 13.02.2023, stating all about the innocence of the Petitioner and that the allegations levelled against him to be baseless. It is W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 9 of 28 also the case of the Petitioner that the allegations mentioned in the Show Cause Notice are minor in nature and also there was no complaint against the Petitioner from the side of the consumers. 10. Pursuant to order dated 21.10.2024, liberty being granted, the Petitioner has also filed an Additional Affidavit on 06.11.2024, in addition to the Rejoinder, stating therein that the Petitioner moved to the office of the Civil Supplies Section in the Office of the Sub- Collector, Sadar, Cuttack twice, dates of which are not recollected by the Petitioner, for collection of the documents prior to passing of the order of suspension. On the first occasion the Asst. Civil Supplies Officer, Sadar, Cuttack was found absent in the office and the Petitioner was told that the officer is on field duty. On the second occasion the A.C.S.O, Sadar, Cuttack was busy in a meeting. Thus, the Petitioner was advised to visit again for collection of the documents after receiving a letter from that office. However, no such letter was issued to him prior to issuance of order of suspension of PDS W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 10 of 28 license of the Petitioner. Thus, the order of suspension was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, reiterating the grounds stated in the writ petition, submitted that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are politically motivated in order to oust the Petitioner from PDS channel so also the order of suspension was passed against the Petitioner without supplying him the relevant documents to rebut the allegations along with the show cause notice dated 28.12.2022. Thus, the suspension order was passed by the Opposite Party No.3 without providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, and in violation of principle of natural justice. 12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to Para-10 of the Counter Affidavit, so also Para-2 of the Additional Affidavit, submitted that though the Petitioner went to the Civil Supplies Section in the office of the Sub-Collector, Sadar, W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 11 of 28 Cuttack twice for collection of the documents prior to passing of the order of suspension, on both the occasions the documents were not supplied to him. Rather, the Petitioner was advised to visit again for collection of the documents after receiving letter from the said office. But to the reason best known to the Opposite Party No.3, no such letter was issued to the Petitioner prior to issuance of order of suspension of PDS license of the Petitioner. The said fact has also been admitted by the Opposite Parties in their Counter Affidavit that the Petitioner appeared before the Sub-Collector in person and prayed for documents. But a false stand has been taken stating that the Petitioner did not turn up to take the documents. Paragraph No.2 of the Additional Affidavit filed by the Petitioner, being relevant, is extracted below for ready reference; “02. That, it is humbly submitted that it is admitted in Paragraph- 10 of the Counter Affidavit that, the Petitioner appeared before the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack in person and prayed the Petitioner did not turn up to take the is this documents. submitted that the Petitioner moved to for documents. But, respect, In it W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 12 of 28 found the Petitioner the Office of the Civil Supplies Section in the Office of the learned Sub- Collector, Sadar, Cuttack two times for collection of documents prior to passing of the Order of suspension, but he is not able to recollect the dates. In the first occasion, the Officer, i.e. learned Asst. Civil Supplies Officer, Sadar, Cuttack, was absent in his Office and it was told that the learned A.C.S.O., Sadar, Cuttack was on field duty. On the second occasion, the Officer was also absent in the Office and the Petitioner was told that the learned A.C.S.O., Sadar, Cuttack was busy in meeting. The person present in the Office advised the Petitioner to come for collection of documents after receipt of the Letter from this Office. But, in vain, no letter was issued to the Petitioner prior to issuance of Order of suspension of PDS License of the Petitioner. As such, the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before passing of Order of suspension.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to joint representation at Annexure-6 of the Writ Petition, further submitted that, since the consumers of the Petitioner represented the Opposite Party No.3 on 13.02.2023 regarding the innocence of the Petitioner, the allegation as to charging excess price per litre of K.Oil from Ration Card W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 13 of 28 beneficiaries is not correct. Apart from the same, the said fact regarding joint representation of the beneficiaries so also the facts detailed in Para-2 of the Additional Affidavit have not been denied by the State-Opposite Parties. 14. Per contra, learned State Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that, though the show cause notice dated 28.12.2022 was issued to the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.3 before passing the order of Suspension, the Petitioner failed to give reply to the same. Thus, the Opposite Party No.3 rightly suspended the license of the Petitioner vide order dated 22.02.2023, which was further challenged by the Petitioner in P.D.S Appeal No.11 of 2023 before the Opposite Party No.2. After going through the submissions of the parties, LCR/documents relating to the suspension order, the Opposite Party No.2 has rightly rejected the Appeal vide order dated 19.06.2024 upholding the order of suspension passed by the Opposite Party No.3. 15. On perusal of the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Collector, Cuttack, it is W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 14 of 28 ascertained that, the observations by the Appellate Authority are that firstly, the irregularities levelled against the Appellant (Petitioner in the present case) were established; secondly, the Appellant was given enough opportunity to submit his show cause reply, which he failed to avail; thirdly, the villagers of the Nandol Village also submitted a petition against the Appellant pointing out irregularities in distribution of PDS materials, which corroborates the suspension order passed by the Licensing Authority and lastly, as the Appellant has been given opportunity of hearing, the Principle of Natural Justice was abided by. 16. As is revealed from LCR in PDS (Appeal) No.11 of 2023, vide order dated 24.05.2023, the Appellate Authority ordered to call for the LCR so also a detailed report of the Sub-Collector & Licensing Authority, Sadar, Cuttack. Pursuant to such order, a communication was made to the Sub-Collector and Licensing Authority by the Office of the Court Officer-cum-Deputy Collector (Jud.) Cuttack vide letter No. 184 dated 24.05. 2023 to submit W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 15 of 28 the LCR along with the detailed report in connection with P.D.S (Appeal) No.11 of 2023, followed by a reminder vide letter No.307 dated 27.09.2023. As is further revealed from the LCR, pursuant to such communication made by the Office of the Appellate Authority, instead of producing the LCR, the Additional CSO, Sadar, Cuttack, vide forwarding letter No.2219 dated 27.02.2024, submitted attested photocopies of various documents pertaining to suspension of license of the Petitioner and the Appellate Authority, without insisting for LCR, vide Order dated 19.06.2024 incorrectly mentioned that “Perused the LCR/documents submitted by the respondent and show cause reply by the appellant.” 17. As is further revealed from LCR, the Marketing Inspector, Salipur, submitted a verification report dated 23.12.2022 before the Sub-Collector, Cuttack, in which it has been stated that on reaching the spot, the retail centre of the Petitioner was found closed and the stock price declaration board was not maintained. Further, it W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 16 of 28 was ascertained from the consumers that the Petitioner has been receiving Rs.2/- to Rs.3/- more on the price of K. Oil per litre, basing upon which the Opposite Party No.3 passed the order of suspension dated 22.02.2023. 18. However, on perusal of the representation dated 13.02.2023, submitted by huge number of consumers of Nandol G.P before the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack, which also forms part of the L.C.R., it has been mentioned therein that fake allegations have been levelled against the Petitioner due to some political reasons. It is further ascertained from the LCR that, when the matter was pending before the Opposite Party No.2, who is the Appellate Authority, a letter dated 31.05.2023 was submitted by the MLA, Salipur before him requesting for dismissal of the Appeal coupled with the letter of the Sarpanch dated 12.05.2023 and the so called representation of some of the villagers, which is also dated 12.05.2023, prior to passing of Order dated 19.06.2024 by the Collector, Cuttack. W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 17 of 28 19. In the Additional Affidavit dated 06.11.2024, in para-2, which has been reproduced above, the Petitioner has specifically stated that he had been to the Office of the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (Licensing Authority) in person twice and approached for documents and he was asked to come for collection of documents only on getting intimation from the Office of the Opposite Party No.3. No objection/response to the said Additional Affidavit was filed by the State-Opposite Parties denying the said averments/allegations made by the Petitioner. 20. Further, in terms of order dated 21st October, 2024, an Additional Affidavit was filed by the State- Opposite Parties on 08.11.2024. In the said Affidavit, the allegation made by the Petitioner in the Additional Affidavit dated 06.11.2024 has also not been dealt with. Apart from that, the L.C.R., which has been produced by the learned State Counsel before this Court, being so directed vide order dated 21st October, 2024, does not disclose the dates of the proceedings before the Sub- Collector, who is the Licensing Authority. Further, the W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 18 of 28 order sheet in P.D.S. (Appeal) No.11 of 2023 has also not been properly maintained by the Appellate Authority. Apart from that, in view of the proviso under Sub-Clause- 2 of Clause 17 of the Control Order, 2016, the Petitioner should have been heard in person before passing the final order dated 22.02.2023 by the Opposite Party No.3. 21. Clause 17 of PDS Control Order, 2016, being relevant, is extracted below for ready reference; “17. Contravention of Conditions of License or Control Orders.- (1) No holder of a license issued under this Order, or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf or placed by him in physical charge of stock shall contravene any of the terms or conditions of the license or of any control Order issued under the Act. (2) If any such person contravenes any of terms or conditions, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, the license shall be cancelled and security deposit shall be forfeited in full or in part: said the Provided that no such order shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case and if he desires of the personal hearing against W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 19 of 28 proposed forfeiture. cancellation and to (3) Upon compliance with all obligations under the license by the licensee, the amount of security deposit or such part thereof, which is not forfeited as aforesaid, shall be refunded licensee after the termination of the license by the Licensing Authority. (4) The Licensing Authority may, by order, without giving prior notice to the Dealer, suspend the license of a Dealer, if a proceeding under sub-clause (1) has been initiated against the dealer, and the said Licensing Authority is satisfied that it is not in the interest of the smooth Public operation Distribution System to allow the Dealer to handle the PDS stocks. the of required Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-clause, the proceedings under sub clause (1) shall be deemed to have been initiated on the date of issue of the show-cause notice by the Licensing Authority. (5) No prior show cause notice would be the allocation of quota to any licensee for a period not exceeding sixty days pending enquiry or investigation against the licensee, if the Licensing Authority has reasons to believe that licensee has not maintained the proper and correct accounts in respect of the quota allocated to him earlier or has diverted the Public for withholding W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 20 of 28 Distribution committed any other irregularities. System stocks or (Emphasis supplied) 22. It is clear from the order passed by the Appellate Authority that though the subsequent representation dated 12.05.2023 submitted before him by the so called few villagers was taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 19.06.2024, but the joint representation of large number of villagers dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure-6) was not taken into consideration. Further, though the show cause notice dated 28.12.2022 given by the Licensing Authority indicates that one of the allegations/illegalities is Rs.2/- to Rs.3/- excess price charged per litre on K.Oil from the ration card beneficiaries, the joint representation allegedly made by some of the villagers of Nandol village dated 12.05.2023, addressed to the Collector, Cuttack- Cum-Appellate Authority, does not disclose such allegation regarding charging of extra price for K.Oil from the beneficiaries. That apart, there is also no such W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 21 of 28 written report of any of the beneficiary on record to substantiate such allegation made in the verification report dated 23.12.2022 submitted by the Marketing Inspector, Salipur. Rather, the joint representation submitted by huge number of villagers/beneficiaries dated 13.02.2023, which bears their signatures, thumb impressions and mobile numbers, as at Annexure-6 of the Writ Petition, which also forms part of the so called L.C.R. submitted before the Appellate Authority, indicates that the Petitioner has a unblemished record for the past 25 years in distribution of P.D.S. commodities to the retailers and he never demanded any extra price from any of the beneficiaries and he gives P.D.S. commodities of right quantity at right time to the beneficiaries. After suspension of his PDS license, though the said joint request was made by the beneficiaries to the Sub- Collector-cum-Licensing Authority to enquire into the matter, but the same is still pending for consideration. 23. Apart from that, admittedly, neither the Petitioner was given documents to give his W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 22 of 28 response/reply to the show cause notice dated 28.12.2022 nor he was called upon to remain present before the Sub-Collector, Cuttack-cum-Licensing Authority to be heard in person before passing of the final order dated 22.02.2023, vide which his P.D.S. license was suspended until further order. It is further revealed from the L.C.R. that despite taking such a ground in the Memorandum of Appeal, the Collector, Cuttack (Appellate Authority), while passing the impugned order dated 19.06.2024, erroneously came to a conclusion that from the documents and report of the Civil Supplies Squad dated 23.12.2022 and report of the B.D.O., Salipur, all the irregularities leveled against the Petitioner-Appellant have been established and the action as per the provision of law has been taken against the Petitioner. It was also erroneously held that the Petitioner was given due opportunity for submitting his show cause reply. That apart, the Appellate Authority, though took note of the so called alleged objection filed by the villagers of Nandol village before him during pendency of the said Appeal, W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 23 of 28 but did not furnish a copy of the same to the Petitioner- Appellant to have his say in the said regard. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order of suspension passed by the licensing authority dated 22.02.2023, as at Annexure-4, is illegal, being passed without giving opportunity to the Petitioner in terms of provisions
Legal Reasoning
enshrined under Clause-17 of the Control Order, 2016. Similarly, this Court is also of the view that the confirming order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 19.06.2024, being influenced by the alleged representation given by some of the villagers of Nandol Gram Panchayat before him on 12.05.2023, which also does not form part of the bunch of documents submitted by the Additional C.S.O., Sadar, Cuttack before him so also without dealing with the specific grounds urged before him by the Petitioner, is illegal, perverse and deserves to be set aside. 24. Pertinent to mention here that sub-clause-(4) under Clause-17 of the Control Order, 2016 empowers the Licensing Authority to suspend the license of a Dealer W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 24 of 28 during pendency of the proceeding under sub-clause (1) even without giving any prior notice to the Dealer. Sub- clause (2) empowers the Licensing Authority to cancel the license for contravention of any of the terms and conditions of license or of any control order under the Act. 25. In view of such clear and unambiguous provisions under Clause-17 of the Control Order, 2016, this Court is of further view that license of a Dealer, in the interest of the smooth operation of the Public Distribution System, can be suspended during pendency of proceeding under Sub-clause (1) of Clause-17 of the Control Order and not for indefinite period even after disposal of the 17(1) proceeding, as has been ordered vide the impugned order dated 22.02.2023. Surprisingly, the Licensing Authority did not suspend the license of the Petitioner during pendency of the proceeding initiated in terms of sub-clause (1) of Clause 17 of the Control Order, 2016. The impugned order of suspension dated 22.02.2023 was passed at the end of the said proceeding W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 25 of 28 on the plea that the Petitioner did not file reply to the show cause notice, instead of passing an order of cancellation in terms of sub-clause(1). As it seems, the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Licensing Authority is intended to be under sub-clause (1) in the guise of suspension of P.D.S. license for an indefinite period, which is not permissible under law. The said erroneous order was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority incorrectly vide order dated 19.06.2014, which amounts to non-application of mind. That apart, the Licensing Authority, while passing the impugned order, did not follow the guidelines of Government of India vide letter No.26(12)/86-ECR dated 09.02.1988 (Annexure-7). Hence, such an order, vide which the Petitioner’s license stood suspended until further order, so also the confirming order of the Appellate Authority are illegal and unsustainable. 26. Accordingly, both the order of suspension of the P.D.S. license of the Petitioner dated 22.02.2023 at Annexure-4 as well as the confirming order dated W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 26 of 28 19.06.2024 passed by the Collector, Cuttack in P.D.S. (Appeal) No.11 of 2023 at Annexure-5 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub-Collector, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.3), who is the Licensing Authority, to rehear the matter after supplying the Petitioner all the documents, based on which the said proceeding was initiated against him. The Licensing Authority, after supplying the documents, shall give time to the Petitioner to submit his reply/response to the show cause notice and pass appropriate order following the guidelines in the said regard dated 09.02.1988 so also in terms of Clause-17 of the Control Order, 2016. The Opposite Party No.3 is further directed to recall the order of suspension of P.D.S. license of the Petitioner forthwith and allow him to continue as Retailer as before, till he takes a decision afresh in terms of the observation made above. 27. The Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of. W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 27 of 28 28. LCR in P.D.S. (Appeal) No.11 of 2023 be returned forthwith to the Office of the learned Advocate General, after keeping the digitized copy of the same,
Decision
which shall form part of the record of the writ petition. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The dated 28th February, 2025/Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 03-Mar-2025 18:01:11 W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 28 of 28