The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the Government, cancelling the direction issued by the Civil Supplies Commissioner on 06.01.2013 directing the grant of licence in favour of petitioner in respect of ARD No. 72 as against the plea of the fifth respondent. The petitioner contends that in Ext. P4, Government had confirmed the findings of the two authorities in Exts. P2 and P3, but still there was a direction to cancel her licence. By Ext.P2, the District Collector, while allowing the appeal of the petitioner against an order granting licence in favour of the fifth respondent, observed that the fifth respondent was not entitled for the retail dealership and hence the appeal was allowed. Fifth respondent preferred a revision before the Civil Supplies Commissioner which resulted in Ext. P3 order. Civil Supplies Commissioner formed an opinion that the fifth respondent was not entitled for the dealership and a direction was issued to give dealership to the petitioner. Ext.P4 order came to be passed on the basis of a revision filed by the fifth respondent. During the pendency of this writ petition, this Court had issued an interim order directing status quo to be maintained in respect of ARD No.72 for a period of one month which continues as matters stand now. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is not an eligible person for being given a licence to run the retail dealership, in so far as she has misrepresented facts and had forged documents. According to the respondent, the petitioner is a BPL card holder and is not eligible to be appointed as a retail dealer. After submitting an application as a BPL card holder, later, some forgery was done and now, it seems that the petitioner had produced some records to indicate that she is an APL card holder. That apart, it is contended that the petitioner is not a native from that area, and, therefore, she is not entitled to get dealership.
3. Learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that since the Government has directed an enquiry to be conducted in the matter, the petitioner will be entitled to proceed with the dealership only after completing the enquiry, and, therefore, there is no necessity to continue the dealership with the petitioner.
4. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is clear that the Government has expressed some doubt regarding the documents produced by the petitioner, and it was observed that an enquiry is to be conducted in the matter. But at the same time, the Government had approved Exts.P2 and P3. By virtue of Ext.P3 Civil Supplies Commissioner had directed the dealership to be given to the petitioner. Though the said order had been set aside, since the Government had directed an enquiry to be conducted. I am of the view that a time limit has to be fixed for conducting the enquiry so that the department can come to final conclusion regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to conduct the ration dealership. Though the fifth respondent has a contention that the petitioner is not eligible, as matters stand now, as long as she is not having any licence to conduct the dealership, she cannot make a claim as against the petitioner. The claim may arise only if fresh application is called for and the matter considered in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
Under these circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of as under.
The petitioner shall be permitted to continue dealership provisionally and in the meantime, necessary enquiry as contemplated in Ext.P4 shall be finalised within one month after hearing the petitioner. The provisional order shall continue until final orders are passed. Her continuation of dealership shall depend upon the orders to be passed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE