JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the legality of the order passed by the Collector, Bhadrak on 6.3.2006 in Annexure-5 appointing opposite party No. 5 as Kerosene Oil Sub-wholesaler at Raipur under Chandabali Block. ?
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had been appointed as a Sub-wholesaler for three Gram Panchayats, namely Panchutikiri, Totapada and Gopinathpur under Chandabali Block. According to the learned counsel, the total population of the three Grama Panchayats will be around 23,000. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that since there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to distribution of kerosene oil to the consumers, there was no reason for the State authority to appoint opposite party No. 5 as Sub-wholesaler for the said Block affecting the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the State with reference to the counter affidavit filed submitted that there are allegations against the petitioner with regard to distribution of kerosene such as charging higher price and supplying less kerosene. Apart from above, taking into consideration the population of the Grama Panchayat under the said Block and geographical barrier, the opposite party No,5 has been appointed.
5. Shri Pujari, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 5 contended that, he had applied for grant of licence for the year 2003-2004 and after verification of the population, geographical barrier as well as the allegations made against the petitioner, the order in Annexure-5 was issued appointing opposite party No. 5 as additional Sub-wholesaler at Raipur under Chandabali Block. It was also contended by Shri Pujari that notice to show cause has been issued to the petitioner for the purpose of cancellation of licence, but due to pendency of the writ application and the interim order of status quo operating, no step has been taken by the State authority.
6. I have perused the report of the Sub-Collector-cum-C.S.O., Bhadrak annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the State in Annexure-C. It appears that decision was taken on the basis of such report for appointment of an Additional Sub-wholesaler. From the report, it appears that the population of Chandabali Block is about 2,37,668 and the guidelines provided for appointment of one Sub-wholesaler for a population of 50,000. Apart from above, it is also stated in the report that there are eight Grama Panchayats on one side of the river and four Grama Panchayats on the other side. Admittedly the petitioner who is operating as a Sub-wholesaler in respect of three Grama Panchayats, namely, Panchutikiri, Totapada and Gopinathpur, two Grama Panchayats namely, Totapada and Gopinathpur are on one side of the river and Panchutikiri is on the other side of the river. Therefore, there is geographical barrier so far as Panchutikiri is concerned and on the basis of the above, an Additional Sub-wholesaler could be appointed in respect of Panchutikiri Grama Panchayat in place of the petitioner. But so far as Totapada and Gopinathpur Grama Panchayats are concerned, there being no geographical barrier and the population as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner being less than 50,000, there is no justification for appointment of an additional Sub-wholesaler. Though it is stated by the learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party No. 5 that there are allegations against the petitioner with regard to less supply of kerosene oil and collection of premium on kerosene, the matter has not been decided finally as yet and is pending at the stage of notice. Undisputedly the period of licence is over since March, 2006 and though application for renewal of licence has been filed, till today, no order so far as the petitioner is concerned, has been passed either cancelling or refusing renewal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has applied for renewal of the licence in terms of the provisions contained in P.D.S. Order, 2002, but no order for renewal of the licence has been passed.
7. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to direct the State authority to look into the report in Annexure-C and what has been observed in this order and find out as to whether there is necessity for appointment of an additional Sub-wholesaler for Totapada and Gopinathpur where the petitioner is operating. Depending on population, if the State authority does not find any necessity, no additional Sub-wholesaler be appointed in respect of the aforesaid Grama Panchayats subject to the condition that the licence of the petitioner is renewed for the year 2006-2007. If the licence is not renewed for the aforesaid year, the State authority may take a decision accordingly. So far as opposite party No. 5 is concerned, his application be reconsidered again for the said Grama Panchayats afresh. If further inquiry is necessary, such inquiry be conducted and a decision be taken. The entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. It will be the responsibility of the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 5 to produce certified copy of this order before the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 for compliance.
8. The writ application is accordingly disposed of.
9. A copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State.
10. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.