Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 118 (ORI)

Maa Sibani Mahila Shg v. State of Odisha

2023-01-20

ARINDAM SINHA

body2023
JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. - W.P.(C) No.447 of 2022 and CONTC No.2053 of 2022 1. Mr. Pujari, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is a Women Self Help Group (WSHG). The Sub-Collector issued Memo dated 10th February, 2020 disseminating information inviting applications for appointment as Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer at Biranasinghpur. He draws attention to clauses 4 and 5 in the notice, reproduced below. '4. The applicant should have sound mind and proven good track record. He/She should be resident of Biranasinghpur i.e., within 01(one) K.M from GP office. 5. The applicant should have go-down to store at least two months stock at a time within 1KM radius of GP office.' 2. He demonstrates from communication dated 12th March, 2021 made by office of Panchayat Samiti, Puri Sadar to the Sub-Collector that opposite party no.8 (WSHG) was at distance greater than 1 km. from the Gram Panchayat (GP) office, while his client was at a distance of less than 1 km. He then draws attention to earlier letter dated 10th July, 2020 of the Block Development Officer (BDO) enclosing inspection report made by the BDO and the Marketing Inspector, to show that opposite party no.8 was reported as situate within 1.5 km. from GP office. He submits, in those facts, impugned order cannot be sustained, whereby the Collector had directed the Sub-Collector to examine the applications afresh. 3. Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate, appears on behalf of opposite party no.8. He argues and makes four points. Firstly, licence of petitioner expired on 30th September, 2021. As such, no purpose will be served by adjudication of the challenge. Secondly, in view of expiry of petitioner's licence, it will not be prejudiced in allowing the Sub-Collector to comply with direction made in impugned order, for fresh examination of the applications. Thirdly, he relies on clauses 5 in Odisha Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 regarding eligibility for grant of licence. He points out there is no criteria of distance for applicants to be located within 1 km. from GP office. Fourthly, petitioner has not applied for renewal of licence at least 45 days before expiry. 5. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for judicial review over impugned order dated 1st December, 2021, passed by the Collector. Perused impugned order. from GP office. Fourthly, petitioner has not applied for renewal of licence at least 45 days before expiry. 5. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for judicial review over impugned order dated 1st December, 2021, passed by the Collector. Perused impugned order. It discloses error on the face of it. Petitioner drew attention to letters dated 12th March, 2021 and 23rd November, 2020, in that order as stated in impugned order. Perusal of these two letters make it clear that in both, opposite party no.8 has been stated to be located at a distance greater than or beyond 1 km. from GP office. Hence, the paragraph from impugned order reproduced below, being basis of directing fresh examination of the applications is erroneous. 'Again the BDO Puri Sadar vide Letter No.891 dated 12.03.2021 reported about comparison of distance of WSHGs to the Sub-Collector Puri in reference to Letter No.554 dated 03.11.2020 & 585 dated 23.11.2020 that all the WSHG including Maa Santoshi SHG is within one K.M. from G.P. Office reference to Notification No.64 dated 11.02.2020 & no such applicant has violated the Clause-5 of OPDS (Control) Order 2016 on 'Eligibility of Grant of License.' (emphasis supplied) 6. On query from Court it has been ascertained that during pendency of petitioner's licence the administration intervened and tagged the card holders to neighbouring distributors. Hence, first and fourth points of opposite party no.8 do not come to aid of it. 7. Regarding second point made by Mr. Mohapatra that petitioner will not suffer prejudice in allowing compliance of direction in impugned order since, its licence has expired, Court must keeping in mind that petitioner was not allowed to complete period of its licence due to intervention by the administration on erroneous premise. Third point urged by opposite party no.8 is regarding the eligibility criteria of 1 km. being beyond clause 5 in the Control Order of 2016. Said opposite party cannot urge this as opposite party in petitioner's writ petition. More so, because said opposite party accepted the term in filing application as candidate and thereupon being unsuccessful, cannot turn around and challenge the criteria. 8. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The administration is directed to forthwith issue licence to petitioner in terms of communication dated 30th July, 2021, made by office of Sub-Collector, Puri (supply section), annexure-6 at page 26 of the writ petition. 8. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The administration is directed to forthwith issue licence to petitioner in terms of communication dated 30th July, 2021, made by office of Sub-Collector, Puri (supply section), annexure-6 at page 26 of the writ petition. This must be done within three weeks of communication and consequential direction for the card holders to obtain their ration from petitioner. Mr. Mohapatra prays liberty for his client to challenge said memo dated 11th February, 2020 on carrying criteria not provided by clause 5 in the Control Order of 2016. Point in that regard has been urged and dealt with above. Nevertheless, opposite party may still apply for remedy, if permissible in law. 9. The writ petition is disposed of. There appears to be pending of CONTC no.2053 of 2022. It is also accordingly disposed of.