Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 515 (ORI)

Subash Chandra Samal v. State of Orissa

2007-07-10

L.MOHAPATRA

body2007
ORDER W.P. (C) No. 11756 of 2006. 10.7.2007 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing Annexures 11 and 14 in which renewal application of the petitioner has been rejected and the appeal preferred against such order of rejection has been dismissed. 3. Sole grievance of the petitioner is that under similar circumstance in the case of two others, namely, Amit Kumar Samal, Baulang and Menaka Sundari Rout, Kasapa under Dasarathpur block, their licences have been renewed, whereas so far as the petition¬er is concerned, he has been discriminated. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the deficiency in service as stated in the show-cause notice earlier, the peti¬tioner had already been punished and therefore he could not have been punished for the self-same cause by rejecting his applica¬tion for renewal of licence. From the record it appears that the petitioner had licence for the year 2004-05 and during the said tenure an allegation was made that there was shortage of 441 litres of SKO and that he had not supplied 2645 litres of SKO to the retailers. On the above allegation, his licence was put under suspension, but later on the licence was restored with forfeiture of entire security deposit. Grievance of the petitioner is that for the aforesaid allegation he having been punished once, his licence could not have been refused/renewed for the self-same reason again. From Annexure-8, it appears that a show-cause notice was issued by the Collector, Jajpur to the petitioner calling for an explanation. In such show-cause notice it is stated that he had been suspended for the aforesaid allegations and his licence had been restored on forfeiture of the entire security deposit. The petitioner submitted his explanation pursu¬ant to the said notice, but the licensing authority turned down the prayer for renewal of the licence for the year 2005-06 in terms of the guidelines issued by the State Government. In the appeal, it was contended by the petitioner that he cannot be punished twice for the self-same cause. But the appellate author¬ity was of the view that the performance of the petitioner having been found unsatisfactory for the year 2004-05, his licence could not have been renewed for the year 2005-06. In the appeal, it was contended by the petitioner that he cannot be punished twice for the self-same cause. But the appellate author¬ity was of the view that the performance of the petitioner having been found unsatisfactory for the year 2004-05, his licence could not have been renewed for the year 2005-06. It is specific case of the petitioner that under similar circumstances two other persons named above had applied for renewal of licence and their licences had been renewed. Reference is made to Annexure-12 series. In respect of Amit Kumar Samal, though it is alleged that he had been punished, his licence had been renewed for the year 2005-06. Similar is the position in respect of Smt. Menaka Sund¬ari Rout. Both the orders of renewal of licences of Amit Kumar Samal and Smt. Menaka Sundari Rout are annexed to the writ appli¬cation as Annexure-12 series. I am, therefore, of the view that if their licences have been renewed for the year 2005-06 in spite of the fact that they have been punished for some allegation, there is no reason to discriminate the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, I quash both the orders impugned before this Court and direct the Collector, Jajpur to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above. If the cases of Amit Kumar Samal and Smt. Menaka Sundari Rout are same as that of the petitioner and licences of the aforesaid two persons have been renewed for the year 2005-06, the petitioner shall not be discriminated. With the above observation, the writ application is disposed of. A copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the State for compliance. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Application disposed of.