Satyananda Muduli and 3 ors. Vs. State of Orissa and 6 ors.

Satyananda Muduli and 3 ors. vs State of Orissa and 6 ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Orissa Decided Sep 29, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/535841

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/535841
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: A.S. Naidu, J.
Decided On: Sep 29, 2005
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 11160/05
Subject: Commercial;Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.198...

Key legal issue: Commercial;Civil
Acts & sections: Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satyananda Muduli and 3 ors.

Advocate M.K. Das,; S. Mallik,; L.D. Dash,;Minarani Das;and B

Respondent

State of Orissa and 6 ors.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002
Reported In: 2005(II)OLR609

Excerpt

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. .....for renew of licence periodically, the authorities have acted illegally and with material irregularity in renewing the licence for a short period.3. mr. das, learned addl. government advocate, submits that the petitioners have not filed any applications for renewal of their licences.the statement made by the learned counsel for the state is found to be not correct specially in view of the fact that in the letter dated 1.7.2005 issued by the collector, dhenkanal, vide annexure-3, refers to an application filed for renewal of s.k. oil sub-wholesale licence for the year 2005-06.4. the further grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that action has been taken and order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. in view of the aforesaid clear position and after going through the impugned order, this court finds that there is some force in the contentions raised. clause 7 of the orissa public distribution system (control) order, 2002 reveals that an opportunity for stating the case should be given. even otherwise in consonance with the principle of natural justice the said requirement is inbuilt. annexure-3 series does not reveal that any such opportunity was given. the order also does not indicate the reasons for cancellation. non-fulfilment of such requirement makes the orders at annexure-3 series vulnerable in the eye of law. therefore, this court has no hesitation to set aside annexure-3 series and remit the matter back the concerned authorities with an observation that the authorities shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after observing all paraphernalia dispose of the proceeding by a reasoned order.this order shall be communicated to the concerned authorities at the cost of the petitioners. requisites shall be filed within seven days.

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.S. Naidu, J.

1. Heard Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate.

2. The grievance of the petitioners who were appointed as Sub-wholesaler licensee for the year 2005-06 under the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002 is that though there is no provision for renew of licence periodically, the authorities have acted illegally and with material irregularity in renewing the licence for a short period.

3. Mr. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate, submits that the petitioners have not filed any applications for renewal of their licences.

The statement made by the learned Counsel for the State is found to be not correct specially in view of the fact that in the letter dated 1.7.2005 issued by the Collector, Dhenkanal, vide Annexure-3, refers to an application filed for renewal of S.K. Oil Sub-wholesale licence for the year 2005-06.

4. The further grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is that action has been taken and order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid clear position and after going through the impugned order, this Court finds that there is some force in the contentions raised. Clause 7 of the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002 reveals that an opportunity for stating the case should be given. Even otherwise in consonance with the principle of natural justice the said requirement is inbuilt. Annexure-3 series does not reveal that any such opportunity was given. The order also does not indicate the reasons for cancellation. Non-fulfilment of such requirement makes the orders at Annexure-3 series vulnerable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to set aside Annexure-3 series and remit the matter back the concerned authorities with an observation that the authorities shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after observing all paraphernalia dispose of the proceeding by a reasoned order.

This order shall be communicated to the concerned authorities at the cost of the petitioners. Requisites shall be filed within seven days.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 2005 Same Parties Satyananda Muduli and 3 ors. vs State of Orissa and 6 ors. Same Subject Commercial;Civil Same Judge A.S. Naidu, J. Acts & Sections Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002

Commercial;Civil