Afr Pradeep Kumar Pradhan vs Union Of India And Others ..... Opp. ... on 12 August, 2020

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Afr Pradeep Kumar Pradhan vs Union Of India And Others ..... Opp. ... on 12 August, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ORI 245

Challenging unilateral decision of merger of Bhubaneswar Regional Office of the Central Warehousing 2 Corporation with that of Patna Regional Office w.e.f. 15.08.2019, as per office order dated 26.07.2019 at Annexure-1, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash such decision and allow the Bhubaneswar Regional Office of Central Warehousing Corporation to continue as before.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Central Warehousing Corporation was established on 02.03.1957 under the Agricultural Produce (Development and Warehousing) Corporation Act, 1956 and commenced its operation since July, 1957. The old Act was repealed and replaced by Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. The main object of the Corporation is to provide scientific storage facilities for agricultural inputs and other notified commodities, besides providing logistic infrastructure. The Central Warehousing Corporation is an ISO certified Schedule-A Mini Ratna Category-I Central Public Sector Enterprises and Corporation of the Central Government. 3 2.1. The regional offices of the corporation are situated in different parts of India on the basis of overall logistic operations, performance, business purposes etc. The Bhubaneswar Regional Office is one among the 13 regional offices of the country, which was established during the year 1990. Since its inception, it continued to serve not only the people of Odisha, but also people of neighboring States, i.e., part of Andhra Pradesh, Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand etc. As many as 21 Warehouse Centres are there in 15 districts of Odisha under the control of Central Warehousing Corporation Regional Office, Bhubaneswar. The operational capacity of the Odisha region is about 3.48 Lakh M.T. which is ordinarily done through the Warehouse Centres. The Food Corporation of India and the Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. are major depositors of Central Warehousing Corporation Bhubaneswar region, apart from many other small and medium depositors around the State.

2.2. In order to enhance the storage capacity of food grains and other notified commodities in future days, the State Government has provided lands at various places for construction of new godowns, wherein either construction is partly made and some lands are still lying vacant awaiting funds. The efforts and endeavour of the State Government to increase the potentiality of Central Warehousing Corporation Regional Office, Bhubaneswar is quite satisfactory and remarkable. Thereby, the Bhubaneswar Regional Office of Central Warehousing Corporation is fulfilling the need of storage of paddy and food grains etc. at large scale and constantly earning profit since 2014-15 to 2018-19. The objectives of Warehousing and distribution is store inventory, creation of time utility, efficient accessibility increasing turnover, better produce process, to decrease shrinkage and optional safety. Besides, importance of warehouse is to provide good customer service. At this point of time, by virtue of the order issued by the Central Government dated 26.07.2019, the Bhubaneswar Regional Office of Central Warehousing 5 Corporation was unilaterally decided to be merged with Patna Regional Office w.e.f. 15.08.2019. The petitioner describing himself as the State Convenor, Right to Food Campaign, R.T.I. activist and a member of Advisor Body of National Human Rights Commission on right to food, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash such order dated 26.07.2019 issued by the Central Government with regard to merger of Bhubaneswar Regional Office of Central Warehousing Corporation with that of Patna Regional Office.

3. Mr. J. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that the unilateral decision taken with regard to merger of Bhubaneswar Warehousing Corporation with that of Patna Warehousing Corporation is an outcome of non-application of mind. Though the petitioner moved the Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation, opposite party no.2 by way of filing a representation on 08.08.2019, with a copy to the Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, requesting to 6 review the said decision or to cancel the office order dated 26.07.2019, but no action has been taken as yet. It is further contended that such unilateral action of the opposite parties is detrimental to the interest of the people of the State. It is further contended that on the basis of the knowledge gathered from the article published on 06.08.2019 in the Odia daily newspaper "Prameya", the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition ventilating the hardship of the people of the State.

4. Mr. U.C. Behura, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 2 and 3, referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3, inter alia contended that the actual business activities are concentrated at Central Warehouses with few staff and officers. Most of the staff and officers are stationed in the regional offices and corporate offices, as a result of which some of the central warehouses suffer from shortage of staff and officers. This situation resulted in high indirect expenses of the regional offices and adequate staff are not 7 deployed in the central warehouses, for which the Corporation was forced to rationalize the function and number of regional offices for better administration of the Corporation. As a result, numbers of regional offices were merged into a single entity. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the opposite parties by issuing the order impugned. It is further contended that though initially it was decided to merge Bhubaneswar Regional Warehousing Corporation with Patna Regional Office into a single entity, vide letter dated 27.06.2019, but later on an administrative decision was taken to restructure the function by retaining seven officers and staff in Bhubaneswar Regional Office, vide letter dated 06.08.2019. Therefore, the order impugned dated 26.07.2019 having been modified, vide order dated 06.08.2019, consequentially no cause of action survives for the petitioner to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

5. This Court heard Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. B. Nayak, learned 8 Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite party no.1; and Mr. U.C. Behura, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.2 and 3 through video conferencing. Though learned Central Government Counsel appears on behalf of opposite party no.1, but no separate counter affidavit has been filed on its behalf. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been disposed of at the stage of admission.

6. On careful perusal of the undisputed fact, as narrated above, as well as the order dated 26.07.2019 at Annexure-1, which is sought to be challenged herein, this Court finds that the impugned decision for merger of Bhubaneswar Regional Office of the Central Warehousing Corporation with that of Patna Regional Office has been taken with a view to saving overhead expenditure to the tune of crores of rupees in a year and also strengthen the Central Warehouses which are suffering from deployment of adequate staff. Thus, the impugned action clearly comes within the fold of administrative function of the 9 authority with which the power of interference of the Court is very limited.

7. In Asif Hammed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1989 SC 1899, the apex Court held that while exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter, which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power.

8. In Union of India v. Flight Cadet Ashish Rai, 2006 (1) Supreme 271, the apex Court held that there should be judicial restraint while making judicial review in administrative matters. The principles laid down therein in respect of judicial review are as under:-

"The duty of the Court is (a) to confine itself to the question of legality; (b) to decide whether the decision making authority has exceeded its powers

(c) committed an error of law (d) committed breach of the rules of natural justice and (e) reached a 10 decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached or (f) abused its powers."

9. The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, with regard to fixation of headquarters of the Gram Panchayat, in Harihar Swain v. State of Orissa, 96 (2003) CLT 454 held in paragraph-6 as follows:-

"6. Fixation of headquarters of a Grama Panhayat in any particular village is essentially an administrative matter and so long as relevant considerations have weighed with the Government in fixing the headquarters in a particular village, the High Court cannot interfere with the decision of the Government like an Appellate Authority and quash the decision of the Government. While exercising power under judicial review, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has only to see whether the administrative power has been exercised within the limits of law and taking into account the relevant considerations and so long as the High Court is satisfied that the power has been exercised within the limits of law after taking into account the relevant considerations, the High Court will not interfere with the same on the ground that it should have been located at a different place."

10. Keeping the above settled position of law in view, it can be safely held that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative decisions of the executive authority, the scope of interference by the Court is limited and that has to be exercised with utmost care and 11 caution. In the present case, although the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.07.2019 at Annexure-1 by which Regional Office of Central Warehousing Corporation, Bhubaneswar has been directed to be merged with Regional Office of Central Warehousing Corporation, Patna, but subsequently an administrative decision was taken to restructure the functions by retaining seven officers and staff in Bhubaneswar Office, vide letter dated 06.08.2019. Thereby, in view of issuance of subsequent circular dated 06.08.2019 at Annexure-D/2, the impugned office order dated 26.07.2019 at Annexure-1 has lost its force.

11. In the above context, it is pertinent to quote the relevant portion of the pleadings made in paragraphs-8 and 10 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties which read as under:-

"8. That in the case of Bhubaneswar Region, looking after Odisha State, the management has taken different approach because of almost completed storage capacity in the State of Odisha. Though initially it was decided to merge Bhubaneswar Region with Patna Region into a single entity vide letter dated 12 27/06/2019. But later an administrative decision was taken to restructure the functions by retaining 7 officers and staff in Bhubaneswar office vide letter dated 06/08/2019. Rest of the officers and staffs have been transferred and posted within the State of Orissa except three outside the State.

Vide letter dated 06/08/2019 and 14/08/2019, it is humbly submitted here that by order dated 06/08/2019 the complete merger of Bhubaneswar Region with Patna Region was modified and Bhubaneswar Regional Office will function with lesser staff so surplus staffs were deployed in Central ware Huses where there is necessity of staffs....."

10. That in reply to paragraph 1 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted here that the restructuring of regional office of the Corporation does not affect any efficiency of the ware house of the state hence apprehension of the petitioner is baseless, without any valid reasons. Hence there is no cause of action to maintain the writ application. It is stated here that restructuring of the reasons of the Corporation are purely administrative matter of the corporation and does not affect the functions of the ware houses in the field for which no public is going to suffer in any manner for which the writ application is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26/07/2019 wherein there was complete merger of Bhubaneswar Region with Patna Region but by letter dated 06/08/2019 the Corporation has already modified the letter dated 26/07/2019 and by modification the corporation has already taken the decision to run the regional office at Bhubaneswar which are looking after the marketing and business development activities in the State of Orissa and will maintain customer relationship at Bhubaneswar i.e. purchase of services, product participation in contract and pest control services, only administrative and finance of 13 both the regions shall be controlled by regional office at Patna...."

12. It is pertinent to mention here, though in the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that issuance of circular dated 06.08.2019 is an internal transaction of the Corporation, but the same was never brought to the limelight so as to bring to the notice of this Court by the petitioner. Be that as it may, if the circular dated 06.08.2019 has come into existence by filing counter affidavit and pleading to that effect has been made in paragraphs-8 and 10 mentioned above, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute, which has emanated from the office order dated 26.07.2019 at Annexure-1, has been taken into consideration and modified vide circular dated 06.08.2019 to the extent indicated above.

13. In the conspectus of facts and law discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the pleadings made in paragraphs-8 and 10 of the counter affidavit mentioned supra and being oblivious of 14 well settled principle of law that scope of interference by the Court in administrative matters is very limited, this Court disposes of the writ petition upholding the modified state of affairs, pursuant to the circular dated 06.08.2019 allowing Bhubaneswar Regional Office of Central Warehousing Corporation to continue as per restructuring with limited number of staff.

14. The writ petition thus stands disposed of. No order as to cost.

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this judgment available in the High Court's official website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)                        (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)
     JUDGE                                 CHIEF JUSTICE



Alok Ranjan Sethy,P.A/
Ajaya Ku. Rana,Sr.Steno.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court