Disposed

Manoranjan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 May 2020WP(C)/10394/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court examined a writ petition challenging a government notification replacing existing private Fair Price Shop dealers with Women Self Help Groups. The court held that before removing the petitioner from dealership, the authority must provide an opportunity of hearing under the principle of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Decision in the impugned notification to be implemented subject to giving the petitioner a final order under natural justice within six weeks of lifting lockdown.

Manoranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Public Procurement and Tenders | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 10394 of 2020

¶2

13.05.2020

¶3

Heard Mr. G.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the notification dated 12.03.2020 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government in Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department addressed to all Collectors of the State for engagement of WSHGs (Women Self Help Groups)/WSHG Federations as FPS (Fair Price Shop) Dealer under public distribution system.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an existing PDS dealer in respect of GPArehikana of Aul Block in the district of Kendrapara having FPS Code No. 1701P097 and is distributing PDS commodities as per the provisions contained in the Act and Rules framed thereunder. By virtue of the impugned notification issued in Annexure-4, now steps are being taken by the Government for appointment of eligible WSHGs as FPS Dealers in place of private FPS units for management of public distribution system in the district. It is further contended that while issuing such notification, opportunity of hearing has not been given, as there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner, so as to deprive the petitioner to continue as dealer for distribution of PDS commodities.

¶6

In view of such contention, this Court is of the considered view that the decision so taken by the State Government in Annexure-4 for appointment of eligible WSHGs as FPS dealers in place of existing private FPS units, where the petitioner is continuing as dealer, cannot sustain in

¶7

the eye of law. Therefore, before removal from dealership of private FPS unit, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner by the authority, instead of passing a blanket order for removal in order to accommodate the eligible WSHG as FPS dealer.

¶8

Accordingly, this Court directs that the decision so taken in Annexure-4 will be given effect to or implemented subject to compliance of principle of natural justice, so far as petitioner is concerned, and as such, continuance of the petitioner in respect of private FPS unit is dependent on the ultimate outcome of the order to be passed by the Collectoropposite party no.4, which should be in conformity with the provisions of principle of natural justice. Needless to mention that the decision will be taken by the Collector-opposite party no.4 within a period of six weeks from the date of lifting of the lockdown.

¶9

The writ petition is thus disposed of.

¶10

Alok

¶11

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Manoranjan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoranjan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhikari Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Makardhaj Patel Vs State of Odisha

Gayatri Baliarsingh Vs State of Orissa

Sankar Kumar Giri Vs State of Odisha

Sahadev Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Gopal Krushna Nayak Vs State of Odisha