Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........under sections 419/420, i.p.c.mr. m.k. das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a criminal case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. it is only clause 15 of the o.p.d.s. (control) order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a criminal case. since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a criminal case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.2. i have perused the relevant clauses of the o.p.d.s. (control) order, 2008 and i find the contention of mr. m.k. das, learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.3. in view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. however, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st march, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

M.M. Das, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.

Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Case. Since in the present case, no order of conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being implicated in a Criminal Case, itself, cannot be a ground to suspend his licence.

2. I have perused the relevant Clauses of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 and I find the contention of Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.

3. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority suspending the licence of the petitioner are quashed. However, since the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31st March, 2007 even after quashing the aforesaid order of suspension, the same cannot be revived. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for grant of a retailership licence, to the competent authority. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and if there is necessity, a fresh licence may be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the O.P:D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. The application if made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and necessary orders either granting or refusing to grant licance shall be passed by the licensing authority within a period of one month from the date of filing of such an application.

4. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.