Remanded

Niranjan Rout v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 May 2023WP(C)/7883/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an order cancelling the petitioner's PDS Retailership licence due to a lack of reasoning and held that a hearing was indeed provided. The matter was remanded to the authority for fresh consideration with a hearing within six weeks and issuance of a speaking order. The embargoed criminal case hearing was also directed to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 31.01.2023 set aside; matter remanded for fresh hearing within six weeks with a speaking order; criminal case hearing expedited.

Niranjan Rout Vs State of Odisha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7883 of 2023

¶3

Niranjan Rout

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & others

¶8

Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. S. Das, AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER 08.05.2023

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶16

Heard Mr. L. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioners with the following prayer:-

¶18

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the proceeding initiated by the Opp. Party No.2 vide E.C. Case No.20 of 2022 against the Petitioner.

¶19

And further be pleased to quash the order passed by Opp. Party No.3 dt.31.01.2023 vide Annexure-8, cancelling the PDS Retailership licence of the Petitioner.

¶20

And further be pleased to direct the Opp. Party No.3 to allow to supply the essential commodities and to distribute the same to the beneficiaries.

¶21

And may also pass such other order/orders as deemed just and proper.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that earlier the

¶23

// 2 //

¶24

Petitioner was before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.526 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 disposed of the writ application with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Further, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to submit any other document at the time of consideration of the claim of the Petitioner by Opposite Party No.3. While disposing of the writ petition on 18.01.2023 this Court further observed that the representation of the Petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

¶25

Referring to the aforesaid said order dated 18.01.2023, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 has rejected the representation of the Petitioner vide order dated 31.01.2023 under Annexure-8. He further contended that while taking a decision no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner. He further submitted that by no stretch of imagination the order dated 31.01.2023 under Annexure-8 can be construed to be a reasoned and speaking order. On such grounds learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing of the impugned order under Annexure-3.

¶26

Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, upon instruction submitted before this Court that the Petitioner, in fact, appeared before the Opposite Party No.3 on 24.02.2023 and he has filed a hazira before the Opposite Party No.3. A copy of same has been annexed to the instruction letter written to the Office of the Advocate General dated 08.05.2023. Therefore, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the allegation of the Petitioner that he has not been provided an opportunity of hearing is baseless and vague. So far second ground of attack to the impugned order by

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

the Petitioner is concerned, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the authorities after considering the facts passed an impugned order dated 31.01.2023 under Annexure-8. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and upon a careful scrutiny of the materials placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.3 has in fact provided an opportunity of hearing as directed by this Court on 18.01.2023 as is evident from the hazira filed by the Petitioner before the Opposite Party No.3. Therefore, such a ground of challenge contains no substance and not backed by any credible evidence. With regard to second ground of challenge to the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 under Annexure-8, the same is not a speaking and reasoned order, this Court on perusal of impugned order under Annexure-8 is of the view that the Opposite Party No.3 has passed an order without assigning any reason whatsoever. Therefore, the same is not in terms of the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by this Court in the earlier writ application. Accordingly, order dated 31.01.2023 under Annexure-8 is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the matter afresh in terms of the order dated 18.01.2023 by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from today by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. On the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner the Opposite Party No.2Collector, Cuttack is also directed to expedite the hearing of the E.C. Case No.19 of 2022 and try to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶32

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶33

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶34

Anil

¶35

ANIL KUMAR SAHOO

¶36

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Date: 2023.05.09 18:55:38 +05'30'

Niranjan Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Rout 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishwonath Behera Vs Bhabani Shankar Chayani, Vice Chairman, C.D.A.

Prakash Chandra Mohanty Vs Gobinda Chandra Sethy., I.A.S

Raghunath Dash Vs Bhakta Charan Mohanty, Enginr. in Chief, Water Resources, Odisha

Shyam Sundar Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Jayanta Kumar Patel Vs State of Odisha

Supriya Dei Vs State of Odisha