Suspension orders under the Odisha PDS Control Order, 2008, require satisfaction of the authority but no prior notice or report supply is needed, and non-compliance does not invalidate the order if it remains in effect till license expiry.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1.This writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash the order of suspension dated 06.08.2015 as at Annexure-3, vide which the Opposite Party No.2 (Collector, Ganjam) ordered to suspend the wholesale kerosene license of the Petitioner. A further prayer has been made to pass an order directing the authority concern to allow the Petitioner to continue as kerosene wholesale dealer in his place of business at Rambha.

2. Opposing to the said prayer made in the writ petition, the State has filed the Counter Affidavit, in response to which the Petitioner has also filed the Rejoinder Affidavit.

3. Mr. Patra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 06.08.2015 as at Annexure-3 submits, in terms of Clause-14 (3) of the Odisha Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, shortly, “Control Order, 2008”, even though a proceeding is initiated against the dealer in terms of Clause 14 (1) of the said Control Order, 2008, it is obligatory on the part of the licensing authority to be satisfied that during pendency of the said proceeding, it may not be in the interest of the smooth operation of the Public Distribution System to allow the dealer to handle the PDS stocks. But, while issuing the impugned order dated 06.08.2015, no reason has been assigned in the said order.

4. Mr. Patra further submits, though on the very same day a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner for cancelation of his license for alleged contravention of various clauses under the Control Order, 2008, till date no communication has been made to the Petitioner regarding the outcome of the said proceeding initiated against the Petitioner, for which he was debarred from preferring an appeal in terms of Clause-17 of the Control Order, 2008, which is akin to the Clause-19 of the OPDS (Control) Order, 2016.

5. Mr. Patra submits, no reason was assigned before issuing the order of suspension in terms of Clause-14 (3) of the Control Order, 2008. Unless the licensing authority is satisfied that the conduct of the dealer is such that the smooth operation of the Public Distribution System may hamper, no order can be passed in terms of Clause-14 (3) of the Control Order, 2008. Since, the impugned order is lacking with such observation, the same being contrary to the provision/pre-condition enshrined under Clause-14 (3) of the Control Order, 2008, deserves interference, despite there being provision of appeal prescribed under clause-17 of the Control Order, 2008.

6. Mr. Patra submits, even though there is a mention regarding the satisfaction of the authority concern, as indicated in the office order dated 06.08.2015, but the so called report was never supplied to the Petitioner. Further, the said report has not been enclosed to the Counter Affidavit filed by the State, based on which the licensing authority allegedly being satisfied, ordered for suspension of the license of the Petitioner. Relying on the order of this Court in Saroj Kumar Tripathy vs. Collector, Sambalpur & ors. reported in 2010 (I) OLR 446, Mr. Patra further submits, the writ court has jurisdiction to deal with the grievance of the Petitioner.

7. In response to such submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Katikia, learned AGA for the State-Opposite Parties, drawing attention of this Court to the Office Order dated 06.08.2015 submits, the Collector & Licensing Authority, Ganjam, Chhatrapur, while passing such order has categorically mentioned that on being satisfied by the Report, ordere