Orissa High Court
Sk. Riasatulla vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 28 February, 2025
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
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 for documents. But, the
Petitioner did not turn up to take the
documents. In this respect, it is
submitted that the Petitioner moved to
W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 12 of 28
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 Petitioner found 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 the said 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:
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
personal hearing against the
W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 19 of 28
proposed cancellation and
forfeiture.
(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 to the licensee after
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
operation of the Public
Distribution System to allow the
Dealer to handle the PDS stocks.
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 required for withholding 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
the licensee has not maintained
proper and correct accounts in
respect of the quota allocated to him
earlier or has diverted the Public
W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2024 Page 20 of 28
Distribution System stocks or
committed any other irregularities.
(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
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,
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
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 03-Mar-2025 18:01:11
