Labanya Barik Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

Labanya Barik ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others ....... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Parija,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. T. Pattanaik,
Addl. Standing Counsel
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 18.01.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶4

S.K. Mishra, J . The Petitioner, who is the Secretary of Maa Santoshi

¶5

Women Self Help Group (WSHG), has preferred the Writ Petition challenging the order dated 10.09.2020, as at Annexure-5, passed by the Sub-Collector, Baripada (Opposite Party No.3), vide which the license of Maa Santoshi WSHG to deal with P.D.S commodities for Retail Centre at Ward No. 19, Baripada, was cancelled for alleged contravention of provisions of Orissa Public

¶6

Distribution System (Control) Order 2016, shortly, ‘Control Order, 2016’. The confirming order dated 18^th February, 2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Collector, Mayurbhanj (Opposite Party No. 2) in P.D.S (Appeal) Case No.01 of 2020 is also under challenge. Both the said orders have been impugned on the ground that the said orders are perverse and the Petitioner never admitted as to the alleged irregularities and agreed to return back the stock of P.D.S @ 5 K.G. per month for 16 months in lieu of entitlement of one

¶7

Sujata Mohanty, as has been incorrectly mentioned in both the impugned orders.

¶8

2. The brief background facts, which led to filing of the Writ Petition, are that the Petitioner’s Self Help Group, namely, Maa Santoshi WSHG was appointed as a retailer under the provisions of Control Order, 2016. The said license was valid till 31.3.2020. Due to outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic, the State Government extended the validity of license of all the retailers of Odisha till 31.03.2021. The Petitioner’s SHG is a graded SHG constituted in the year 2009-10 and is performing its duty to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities without any allegation. When the matter stood thus, some of the rival political people, in order to wreck vengeance, made a viral video and made false

¶9

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

¶10

Page 2 of 10

¶11

and baseless allegation against the Petitioner’s SHG. Because of the said false and baseless allegation, the Sub-Collector, Baripada (Licensing Authority) made an enquiry. Vide order dated 27.07.2020, the license of the Petitioner’s SHG was suspended and the retail centre was tagged with another retailer namely ‘Purnamasi SHG’ and no permanent retailer has been appointed till date. In addition to the same, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner for cancellation of the license as detailed therein. The Petitioner submitted its reply to the said Show Cause Notice on 04.08.2020 denying all the allegations made therein. However, the Sub-Collector, Baripada, who is the Licensing Authority, vide order dated 10.09.2020, without considering the grounds stated in the reply submitted by the Petitioner, illegally cancelled the license of the Petitioner’s SHG and also directed to recover Rs.2560/- from the petitioner and security money of Rs.1000/- deposited by the Petitioner’s SHG was forfeited.

¶12

3. Being aggrieved by the said cancellation order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal in terms of Clause-19 of the Control Order, 2016. The Collector, who is the Appellate Authority, without appreciating the materials available on record and without considering the grounds agitated by the Appellant

¶13

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

¶14

Page 3 of 10

¶15

(Petitioner herein) before him, erroneously passed the impugned confirming order dated 18.02.2021, which is also the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶16

4. The order passed by the Licensing Authority so also the confirming order passed by the Appellate Authority have been challenged basically on the ground that in view of the Provision of Clause 19 (4) of the Control Order, 2016, no Appeal shall be disposed of unless the aggrieved person has been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing whereas, the impugned order was passed suddenly on 18.02.2021 by the Appellate Authority without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. A further ground has been agitated in the Writ Petition that the interim enquiry report, based on which the Show Cause Notice was issued, was neither supplied to the Petitioner nor the Petitioner was provided an opportunity of participating in the interim enquiry and the entire enquiry proceeding is vitiated in law being violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶17

5. A further stand has been taken in the Writ Petition to annul the impugned orders passed by the Licensing Authority so also the confirming order passed by Appellate Authority that based on a Viral Video, such an action was taken against the

¶18

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

¶19

Page 4 of 10

¶20

present Petitioner without knowing the source of the said video so also without verifying the authenticity of the said Viral Video through Cyber expert and that cannot be the basis to cancel the license of the Petitioner. Apart from the same, the complainant was not examined nor was the Petitioner afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and adduce rebuttal evidence.

¶21

6. Another ground to challenge the said impugned orders is, though the Show Cause Notice consists of three parts, but the original order of cancellation of license was passed by the Sub-Collector, Baripada, resting upon only first part i.e. alleged issuance of less quantity of rice than the actual entitlement. Hence, the Licensing Authority did not find any evidence against the Petitioner so far as the other allegations are concerned.

¶22

7. Further stand of the Petitioner is that, all the entitlements of the benefits of the beneficiaries have been provided with P.D.S rice under proper signatures in the sale register, through proper Aadhar authentication using biometric finger prints and also through e-Pos device/machine showing the actual quantity. Neither the interim enquiry committee nor the Sub-Collector has taken such aspect into notice while

¶23

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

¶24

Page 5 of 10

¶25

proceeding against the Petitioner’s SHG to cancel its P.D.S license.

¶26

8. It is the further case of the Petitioner that, at no point of time the Petitioner admitted the irregularities and agreed to return back the stock of P.D.S rice @ 5 kg per month for 16 months, as has been incorrectly mentioned in the impugned orders passed by the Licensing Authority so also the Appellate Authority. Hence, both the impugned orders, being contrary to the materials available on record, are perverse and deserve

¶27

interference.

¶28

9. In response to the allegations made in the Writ Petition, a Counter Affidavit has been filed by the State reiterating the stand as has been taken by the Licensing Authority so also the Appellate Authority in the impugned orders, to which, the Petitioner has filed a Rejoinder Affidavit reiterating the stand taken by him in the Writ Petition.

¶29

Court, while issuing notice to the Opposite Parties, as an interim measure, vide order dated 03.08.2021 stayed the operation of impugned orders under Annexure1 & 5 and the said order was extended from time to time.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

¶31

Page 6 of 10

¶32

11. Mr. Parija, leaned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite such Interim Order, since the authorities did not allow the Petitioner’s W.S.H.G. to operate the P.D.S. retail centre, a contempt proceeding was initiated which was registered as CONTC No.5809 of 2021. In view of such submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, liberty being granted, an additional Affidavit dated 3.12.2023 has been filed disclosing therein the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench in CONTC No.5809 of 2021. Office Order dated 03.12.2022 of the Sub-Collector, Baripada, vide which, it was ordered to renew the license of the Petitioner’s S.H.G. Thereafter, the license was issued in favour of the Petitioner (Secretary, Maa Santoshi WSHG), which is valid till 31^st March, 2024.

¶33

12. Mr. Parija, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

¶34

reiterating the stand taken in the Writ Petition so also drawing attention of this Court to the reply dated 04.08.2020, as at Annexure-4, submitted by the Petitioner in response to the

¶35

Show Cause Notice issued by the Sub-Collector, Baripada (Licensing Authority) submits, the Petitioner (Retailer) neither admitted before the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority regarding alleged irregularities nor agreed to return

¶36

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

¶37

Page 7 of 10

¶38

the stock of P.D.S @ 5 K.G. per month for 16 months in lieu of entitlement of one Sujata Mohanty, as has been incorrectly indicated in the impugned cancellation order dated 10.09.2020 as at Annexure-5 so also in the decision taken by the Appellate Authority dated 18.02.2021 in P.D.S (Appeal) Case No. 01 of 2020, which has been passed basing on the said observation made by the Licensing Authority without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner’s-SHG in terms of Clause 19(4) of the Control Order, 2016.

¶39

13. Since there is a reference to the said so called deposition of the Secretary of the Maa Santoshi Self Help Group (present Petitioner) dated 01.09.2020 in the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Baripada, so also reference to the explanation dated 04.08.2020 of the Petitioner S.H.G by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 18.02.2021, as at Annexure-1, Mr. Parija, drawing attention of this Court to the said so called statement, which is in “Odia vernacular” and appended to the

¶40

Rejoinder Affidavit as Annexure-7 submits, the said document has been obtained by the Petitioner under the R.T.I Act, the contents of which is contrary to the observation made by the Licensing Authority. Rather, the Petitioner-Labanya Barik, Secretary of the Maa Santoshi S.H.G, has given a statement

¶41

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

¶42

Page 8 of 10

¶43

justifying the alleged irregularities, which was made viral, as a result of which the Retail License of the Petitioner’s S.H.G was cancelled.

¶44

14. After perusal of the said statement dated 01.09.2020 as at Annexure-7 so also the explanation dated 04.08.2020 as at Annexure-4, this Court is of the view that the so called admission by the Petitioner, as has been indicated by the Licensing Authority so also the Appellate Authority in the impugned orders are perverse, being beyond material on record.

¶45

15. In view of the detailed discussion as made above, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Sub-Collector, Baripada, as at Annexure-5 and the order of the Appellate Authority i.e. the Collector, Mayurbhanj dated

¶46

18.02.2021 as at Annexure-1 and orders accordingly.

¶47

As has been detailed above, in view of the interim order dated 03.08.2021 passed by this Court in I.A. No.6490 of 2021 so also the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in CONTC No.5809 of 2021, the Licensing Authority has already renewed the Retail License of the Petitioner’s S.H.G., which is valid till 31.03.2024.

¶48

16. In view of such admitted facts and documents on record, this Court is of the view that there is no need to give any further direction to the Opposite Parties to facilitate and allow

¶49

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

¶50

Page 9 of 10

¶51

the Petitioner’s S.H.G to continue as P.D.S Retailer in respect of Ward No.19 under Baripada Municipality in the district of Mayurbhanj, as has been prayed in the Writ Petition.

¶52

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶53

…….….………………

¶54

S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶55

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 16 th January, 2024 /Kanhu

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 27-Jan-2024 11:37:12

¶58

W.P.(C) No.14710 of 2021

¶59

Page 10 of 10

Labanya Barik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Labanya Barik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhransu Sekhar Jena Vs the Additionall District Magistrate

Purushottom Sahu Vs State of Odisha

L.a.Collector,Balaso Vs Smt.Kanchan Giri

Susanta Kumar Parida Vs State of Odisha

Madhusmita Patra Vs Ganesh Chandra Jena

M/S. Nilakantha Enterprises, Dhenkanal Vs M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd. Chennai