Skip to content


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

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932
AppellantHarekrishna Sahoo
RespondentState of Orissa and Two ors.
Excerpt:
.....a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. orderm.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.....
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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //