2011 (8) TMI 1307 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated 15 June, 2009.
2. Compliance with the order dated 14 June, 2007.
3. Suppression of material facts by the appellant.
4. Authority of the Directorate to take final decisions.
5. Estoppel against the appellant from challenging the order.

Summary:

1. Validity of the order dated 15 June, 2009:
The appeal arises from an order dated 15 June, 2009, directing the Principal Secretary or Joint Secretary, Food, to reconsider the merits of applicants for M.R Distributorship at Bhupatinagar who filed applications on or before 1 June, 2005. The order was corrected informally on 25 June, 2009. The appellant, Annadata Distributor, challenged this order, arguing it contradicted an earlier order dated 14 June, 2007, and that the learned single Judge did not provide reasons for setting aside the order dated 31 August, 2007, and the vacancy notice dated 6 September, 2007.

2. Compliance with the order dated 14 June, 2007:
The earlier order dated 14 June, 2007, directed authorities to consider applications based on particulars submitted by 1 June, 2005. The learned single Judge in the impugned order reiterated that the authorities must consider documents submitted on or before this date. The appellant argued that the impugned order enlarged the date for submission of documents, which was contrary to the order dated 14 June, 2007.

3. Suppression of material facts by the appellant:
The appellant did not disclose a letter dated 4 September, 2009, wherein they requested compliance with the order dated 15 June, 2009. The Court emphasized that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings. The appellant's failure to disclose this letter was seen as a lack of full and fair disclosure, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. Authority of the Directorate to take final decisions:
The learned single Judge found that the Directorate's order dated 31 August, 2007, was perverse and contrary to the record, as it did not accept the financial solvency of Ranjit Kumar Maity. The Judge held that the Director had no authority to take final decisions or direct the District Controller to issue a fresh notice, rendering the order without jurisdiction. The approval by the State Government was also found to be mechanical and not in accordance with the Control Order, 2003.

5. Estoppel against the appellant from challenging the order:
The appellant, having accepted the order and requested its implementation, was estopped from challenging it. The principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate was applied, meaning the appellant could not accept and reject the same instrument. The Court noted that the State respondents were in the process of implementing the order.

Conclusion:
The Court found no infirmity in the order dated 15 June, 2009, as corrected on 25 June, 2009, and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. The eligibility of dealers was to be considered based on documents submitted by 1 June, 2005, as per the earlier order dated 14 June, 2007.