NARASINGH PODHIARY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in these three writ petitions being more or less identical, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1178 of 1999 was granted licence to run soft drink stall near departmental canteen inside Nandankanan Zoologial Park for the year 1998-99. The petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1179 of 1999 was granted licence to run fruit-juice stall inside Nandankanan Zoological Park for the year 1998-99 and the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 890 of 1999 was also granted licence to run two soft drink stalls-one near Boat Ghat and the other at nocturnal house in Nandankanan Zoological Park, for the year 1998-99. Since the licences granted to the petitioners were not renewed, they have approached this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ direction or order commanding the Nandankanan Zoo authorities to settle their respective stalls with them for the year 1999-2000 by negotiating the monthly rent/licence fee on the basis of the licence fee for the year 1998-99. In addition to the above, the prayer in O.J.C. No. 890 of 1999 is for quashing of Annexure 4, order dated 23-12-1998 of the Government of Orissa whereby the prayer of the applicant for allowing him to continue with the Fruit Parlour in Nandankanan Zoological Park was rejected. His further prayer is for restraining the opp. party No. 6 - Orissa Tourism Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar "to operate any stall, hotel or eatable restaurant inside the Nandankanan Zoological Park."

(3.) Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to refer to the circumstances under which Annexure 4 the impugned order in O.J.C. No. 890 of 1999 was passed.It appears that since the Zoo authorities were not considering the question of renewal of the soft drink parlour of Gajendra Behera (petitioner in O.J.C. No. 890/99), he had approached this Court by way of O.J.C. No. 11897 of 1998 for a direction to the opp. parties for renewal of his soft drink stall at the Boat Ghat and at nocturnal house of Nandankanan Zoological Park. The said writ petition (O.J.C. No. 11897/98) was disposed of by this Court directing the opp. parties therein, i.e., tate or any other competent authority to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding renewal of his licence within a stipulated period. Accordingly, after due hearing, the representation was rejected. In his representation, the petitioner in that writ petition had alleged that though he had been running the stall for a very long period prior to 1998-99, he, as is clear from Annexure 4 was not able to produce any receipt showing payment of rent/licence fee to substantiate his claim. He was able to file receipt only for the period 1997-98 and, therefore, it was held that he was given a licence to run the stall only for that year. The State Government had also taken note of the recommendation of the Director, Nandankanan that private persons should not be allowed to run soft drink parlour inside Nandankanan Zoo from 1998-99. It also appears from the said order that earlier a Public Interest Litigation, namely, O.J.C. No. 5579 of 1998 was filed before this Court praying for issuance of a direction to the opp. parties therein to close all the authorised stalls/cabins inside the park and that only O.T.D.C. should be allowed to operate. In the said O.J.C. (OJC No. 5579/98), interim directions were issued on 18-9-1998 which read as under :