Partly allowed

Ramanath Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Jun 2020WP(C)/10931/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court stayed a government order replacing private PDS dealers with Women Self Help Groups, directing the Collector to decide within six weeks by affording hearing to the existing dealer under natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Stay on government order; Collector directed to pass order within six weeks following natural justice; Petitioner's continuance pending new order.

Ramanath Panda Vs State of Odisha — Public Procurement and Tenders | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.10931 of 2020

¶2

2. 05.06.2020

¶3

Heard Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Counsel for the State.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for quashment of Annexures-7 & 8 issued by the Govt. of Odisha in the Department of 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 Bhograi Block under Balasore District 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-6, 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-6 for appointment of eligible WSHGs as FPS dealers in place of existing private FPS units, W.P.(C) No. 10691 of 2020 where the petitioner is continuing as dealer, cannot sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, before removal from dealership of private FPS unit, opportunity of

¶7

¶8

¶9

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.

¶10

Accordingly, this Court directs that the decision so taken in Annexure-6 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.2, 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.2 within a period of six weeks from the date of lifting of the lockdown due to COVID-19.

¶11

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶12

……..…..………… P. Patnaik, J.

Ramanath Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanath Panda 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

Prasanta Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Jyoti Ranjan Pani Vs Agrawal Automobiles Authorised Sub Dealer of Bajaj Auto Two Wheelers

Nirupama Ghosh @ Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Pranakrushna Parida Vs the Member, Board of Revenue

Alok Ku.Sarangi Vs Union of India

Santanu Lohura Vs Pradeep Kaur