Nimai Chandra Majhi Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.30932 of 2023

¶3

An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

¶4

¶5

Nimai Chandra Majhi … … Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & others … … Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rakesh Rout, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Prem Kumar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel ------------------

¶8

P R E S E N T:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

¶10

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Decided on : 22^nd April, 2026

¶11

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

¶12

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the orders dated 13.09.2022 and 23.06.2023 under Annexures-7 and 8.

¶13

The petitioner was appointed as a dealer for the Public Distribution System Commodity by the authority (opposite party no.4) in respect of Fair Price Shop for Nishanpur village under Analia Gram Panchayat,

¶14

W.P.(C) No.30932 of 2023 Page 1 of 7

¶15

Bhogarai Block in the district of Balasore, the centre Code number of the said fair price shop being 0204P031. Order at Annexure-7 impugned before this Court dated 13.09.2022 discloses the following:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.30932 of 2023 Page 2 of 7

¶17

2. The order no.8 dated 23.06.2023 was passed by the Collector and District Magistrate pursuant to the order dated 03.11.2022 by the co-ordinate Bench passed in W.P.(C) No.27461 of 2022. Appeal was filed by the petitioner-dealer challenging his disengagement as fair price dealer on the alleged contravention of Clause-3 (3) read with Clause 17 of the Orissa PDS Control Order, 2016.

¶18

3. The appeal before the Collector & District Magistrate was numbered as PDS Appeal No.42 of 2022. The appeal was rejected by the authority by order dated 23.06.2023 after recording reasons with the following observations:

¶19

“… … In view of the foregoing discussion and after perusal of all the materials available on record together with the report of Sub-Collector, Balasore, the appellant has committed gross negligency and wilful activities violating the Government guideline. So the action taken by the Sub-Collector, Balasore against the Appellant is just & proper. Hence, the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore cancelling the PDS License of the Appellant as FPS Dealer Nishapur under Bhograi Block is up-held. The Appeal is disposed of.”

¶20

4. In the present writ application, the principal ground of challenge is: that whichever proceeding was initiated against the petitioner-dealer was not pursuant to any complaint against the dealer, there is no material on record that could be adversely construed against the dealer nor there was any physical verification to arrive at

¶21

W.P.(C) No.30932 of 2023 Page 3 of 7

¶22

any conclusion much less to give any adverse factual finding.

¶23

5. Counter affidavit dated 05.01.2024 was filed by the opposite party nos.3, 4 and 5 through the Assistant Civil Supply Officer (Sadar), Balasore. Rejoinder dated 13.09.2024 to the counter has been filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was heard on certain occasions.

¶24

6. On 12.01.2026, this Court after hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for State directed the following:

¶25

“1. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate referring the writ petition, counter affidavit as well as the sur-rejoinder that there is absolute no material on record to support the action of the authorities in disengaging the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop Dealer canceling his FPS Dealership License for Nishanpur Village under Analia Gram Panchayat, Bhograi Block in the District of Balasore.

¶26

It is further submitted that there is no complaint against the petitioner and there was no material on record or physical verification to arrive at the conclusion that was arrived by the competent authority while passing the order dated 13.09.2022 under Annexure-7 that was subject matter of appeal before the appellate authority. It is also submitted that the appellate authority vide order dated 23.09.2026 under Annexure-8 has not considered the matter in proper prospective and confirmed the order dated 13.09.2022 under Annexure-7 passed by the appropriate authority.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.30932 of 2023 Page 4 of 7

¶28

2. At this stage, on a query made by the Court, the learned Senior Advocate respond that he shall obtain instruction whether the matter can be disposed of observing that order dated 13.09.2022, subsequently confirmed by order dated 23.06.2023 shall not be in any manner a bar for future engagement of the petitioner and/or his reinstatement as a Fair Price Dealer for Nishanpur Village.

¶29

This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

¶30

3. The learned Additional Standing Counsel has adjournment to obtain instruction in terms of observations at paragraph-2 above.

¶31

4. List in the week commencing 27th January, 2026.”

¶32

7. Thereafter affidavit dated 15.04.2026 has been filed by the opposite party nos.1 to 4 through the Additional Civil Supply Officer in the office of the Sub-Collector, Balasore which is on record. Copy of the affidavit could not be found in the scanned copy as well as physical copy of the brief of the Court. The learned Additional Standing Counsel hands up another copy along with Memo of date which is taken on record.

¶33

The Registry shall make effort to find out the copy of affidavit dated 15.04.2026, if the said copy is not found, the copy filed today shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be updated.

¶34

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to rejoinder paragraphs-6, 7 and 8, apart from the contention raised in the writ petition. The learned Senior

¶35

W.P.(C) No.30932 of 2023 Page 5 of 7

¶36

Advocate further apprises the fair stand taken by the opposite parties and refers to paragraphs-2 and 3.

¶37

This Court also appreciates the stand taken by the opposite parties through the learned Additional Standing Counsel which is expected from the Administrative Authorities in the helm of affairs more so from the authorities exercising statutory powers.

¶38

9. In view of the categorical finding by the authorities as mentioned in order dated 15.04.2026 that the petitioner’s conduct is bonafide, approximately 98% of PDS transactions those were carried out by the petitioner-dealer were through authenticated e-Pos mode with no material/evidence of misappropriation, diversion, wrongful denial or any other wrongdoing; the impugned orders dated 13.09.2022 and 23.06.2023 under Annexures-7 and 8 are set aside.

¶39

10. It is also submitted and highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel that the fair price shop has been tagged to another dealer and no other dealer has been appointed in place of the petitioner in the interregnum.

¶40

11. In view of these facts, it is further directed that the fair price shop of Nishanpur village under Analia Gram Panchayat, Bhogarai Block in the district of Balasore shall be again allocated to the petitioner.

¶41

The petitioner shall continue to keep up to his reputation as found out by the authorities being diligent,

¶42

W.P.(C) No.30932 of 2023 Page 6 of 7

¶43

sincere and honest in his transactions in dealing with the fair price commodities.

¶44

The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶45

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

¶46

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The dated 22^nd April, 2026/Gs