In this writ application, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the Commissionercum-Secretary to Govt. of Orissa Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department in Appeal Case No. 11 of 2007 (vide Annexure-11) which has passed in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under Clause 14 of the OPDS (Control) Order, 2002.

The Appellate Authority in the impugned order has come to the following findings:

'5. In the circumstances I find that the order of the learned Collector is defective in so far as some grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice have been relied upon by the learned Collector while refusing to renew his licence and that, though adverse reports of some functionaries have been referred to in the impugned order as grounds of the refusal copies thereof had not been communicated to the appellant to enable him to show cause on such grounds.'

After reaching the aforesaid conclusion, the Appellate Authority has further given the directions as contained in Paragraph-6 which is quoted below:

'6. However, the matter related to renewal of licence for the year 2006-07 and the license, even if renewed, would have been valid only upto 31.3.2007. Hence the relief of restoration of licence cannot be granted in the present case. However, if it is proposed to appoint any sub-wholesaler at the place of business of the appellant in Barchana Block, the appellant should be allowed to apply for the same and his case should be considered on merit by the learned Collector. With these observations, the appeal is disposed.'

Mr. S. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the aforesaid impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that while the Appellate Authority had held that the proceeding against the petitioner was defective, yet, had not issued consequential directions to the appropriate authority to .renew the Kerosene sub-wholesale licence of the petitioner, on the ground that the original proceeding had been initiated on an application of the petitioner seeking renew of the kerosene sub-wholesale licence for the year 2006-07 and since the said period had expired by 31.3.2007, i.e., before the date of disposal by the Appellate Authority, it did not grant any further relief to the petitioner and instead directed that, as and when a fresh sub-wholesaler will be appointed, the appellant is free to apply for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the directions of the Appellate Authority are wholly unlawful and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, having come to the conclusion that the Collector while passing the impugned order was erroneous, ought to have also further directed him to issue a license of renewal for the period after the order in appeal and such relief ought not to have denied on the ground that the original period of license sought for had expired. Learned counsel further submits that as on the date of passing of the appellate order, the petitioner had in fact, already filed an application for renewal of licence for the period 2007-08 as well vide Annexure-16 to the writ application, which was not taken into consideration.

Learned Addl.Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and states that once the period of renewal sought for has lapsed, no further relief could have given by the Appellate Authority and there is no error made by the Appellate Authority in not directing the renewal of licence for the period 2006-07 since the period had lapsed by the date of passing of the order by the Appellate Authority. He further submits that the application made by the petitioner’ for renewal of license for the year 2007-08 is incomplete and not in proper form as mandatory under the rules, inasmuch as, the chalan indicating the payment of renewal fees has not been deposited.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the limited nature of grievance in the present case, am of the considered view that once any order is challenged before the Appellate Authority and the said Appellate Authority allows such an appeal by holding that the impugned order suffers from any illegality, .it is incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to pass necessary directions restoring such an Appellant to the position where the Appellant was as on the date of passing of the original impugned order. It is no doubt true that during the pendency of the appeal against the order refusing renewal of licence applied for the year 2006-07 had lapsed and the appellate order was passed only on 13.9.2007. Yet, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority once having come to a finding that the order of Collector impugned before him was defective, to pass consequential necessary corollary orders to ensure that the benefits of the order in appeal accrues to the benefit to the appellant. In this respect, Annexure-16 to the writ application filed by the petitioner is its application seeking renewal of licence for the year 2007 -08.

Sri Das, learned Add!. Govt. Advocate fairly submits that the petitioner could not have made any deposit of renewal fees unless the chalan is signed by the appropriate authorities and obviously, the said appropriate authorities having not renewed the licence of the petitioner, no order could have been issued for accepting the chalan for this year, i.e. 2007-08.

In consideration of the facts of the aforesaid case and for the reason narrated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned herein under Annexure-11 (to the extent of the directions contained in Paragraph-6 thereof) is quashed and replaced by the following directions.In view of the order dated 13.9.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 11 of 2007 and the order dated 3.2.2007 passed by the Collector, Jajpur were quashed and, therefore, no longer subsis

t. The application of the petitioner under Annexure-16 must be processed in accordance with law. Necessary chalan or any other statutory requirements, if any, may be complied with and the license of the petitioner for the year 2007-08 be renewed within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to produce the certified copy of this order before the Collector, Jajpur for necessary compliance. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Petition disposed of.