IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1605 of 2026 An application under Articles, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950;

---------------

Arun Kumar @ Barik … … Petitioner -Versus-

Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Puri and others … … Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. D. N. Lenka, AGA ------------------ P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing & Judgment : 20^th January,2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.S.SAHOO, J. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a fair price shop owner/dealer in the district of Puri at Radhakrushnapur, P.O.Jagannathpur.

The petitioner Public Distribution System (PDS)

Dealer challenges the order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the opposite party no.2-Sub Collector, Puri & Licensing Authority. By the said letter the PDS license as well as the PDS dealership of the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect, the purported reason stated in the letter being ‘irregular distribution of PDS rice to the cardholder and contravention of the conditions of Odisha Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 as well as PDS license’.

Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the statutory authority under Order 19 of the Odisha Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 challenging the said order dated 26.12.2025 by filing appeal, registered as Appeal Case No.1 of 2026.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate were heard at length.

On consent the matter is finally heard and disposed of.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though he has opted for the statutory appeal under Order 19 (1) which also has a provision, i.e., 19 (5) not to give effect to the order of suspension and he has filed appropriate I.A. seeking interim order, he is facing undue hardship due to deprivation of his livelihood upon suspension of the license, therefore, he has approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the appeal he should be allowed to continue with his PDS dealership out of which he earns his livelihood without prejudice to the merits of the said appeal filed Order 19 (1) of Odisha Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

5. In response the learned Additional Government Advocate relies on the provisions of OPDS (Control), 2016: Order 17 (1) and (4) read with Order 5 to support the action of the authorities. The said Orders are reproduced herein:

“17. Contravention of Conidiations of License or Control Orders.- (1) No holder of a license issued under this Order, or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf or placed by him in physical charge of stock shall contravene any of the terms or conditions of the license or of any control Order issued under the Act.

(2) … … … (3) … … …

(4) The Licensing Authority may, by order, without giving prior notice to the Dealer, suspend the license of a Dealer, if a proceeding under Sub-clause (1) has been initiated against the dealer, and the said Licensing Authority is satisfied that it is not in the interest of the smooth operation of the Public Distribution System to allow the Dealer to handle the PDS stocks.

Explanation-For the purpose of this sub-clause, the proceedings under sub clause (1) shall be deemed to have been initiated on the date of issue of the show-cause notice by the Licensing Authority.

(5) No prior show cause notice would be required for withholding the allocation of quota to any licensee for a period not exceeding sixty days pending enquiry or investigation against the licensee, if the Licensing Authority has reasons to believe that the licensee has not maintained proper and correct accounts in respect of the quota allocated to him earlier or has d