Orissa High Court
Swopnajit Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 24 June, 2024
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
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.
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
the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and
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
of utmost necessity that the petitioner
approaching the Writ Court must come with
clean hands, put forward all the facts before the
court without concealing or 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
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. Padmabati Mohapatra bearing 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.
As per Govt. rules "In appointment of
Retailer or renewal of PDS license, the
applicant/Retailer has adequate financial
resources to run a retail fair price shop and has
suitable premises for functioning of the retail
shop with others facilities".
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.
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:54:53
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 24th June, 2024/Kanhu
