GAJANAN CONSUMERS WELFARE SOCIETY SHAHABAZAR GULBARGA Vs. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-society was granted a licence for purchase, sale or storage of sugar under the provisions of the Karnataka Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensing Order'). The Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, in exercise of his powers under clauses 7 and 7B of the Licensing Order, has by the order dated 8-4-1980 (Annexure C) in File No. FSD. COM.2/80-81, cancelled the aforesaid licence granted to the petitioner and has also forfeited the security deposit. This was challenged by the petitioner in the appeal preferred under clause 8 of the Licensing Order, before the Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore, who, by the order dated 12-5-1980 in No. DFS. 16.DRA/1980-81, has set aside the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner and has remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for deciding the case afresh while remitting the matter, the Director of Food and Civil Supplies has further directed that pending the disposal of the case before the Deputy Commissioner, the licence granted to the petitioner shall remain suspended. It is this last portion of the order of the appellate authority suspending the licence pending the disposal of the case by the Deputy Commissioner that is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Sri Manohar Rao Jagirdar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the suspension of licence is permissible under the provisions of the Licensing Order only by way of penalty which can be done only after holding an enquiry and after recording a finding that the petitioner committed the alleged contravention of the conditions of licence; that in the instant case, as a result of setting aside of the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remitting the matter for fresh disposal, there was no finding regarding the contravention of the conditions of the licence therefore, no order suspending the licence pending the disposal of the case could have been passed. However, Sri M. R. Achar, the learned 11 Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submitted that as there is a power vested with the appellate authority for granting an order of stay, it is open for the appellate authority to pass an order suspending the licence pending the enquiry. The contention of the learned II Additional Government Advocate cannot be accepted inasmuch as the order of suspension under the provisions of the Licensing Order could be issued by, way of penalty and that can be done only after recording a finding that the petitioner has contravened any one of the conditions of the licence. As the matter stands now, there is no finding on record, that the petitioner has contravened any of the conditions of the licence. Mere allegations of contravention of conditions of licence, until and unless a finding is recorded to that effect after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, do not provide a basis for passing an order suspending the licence pending the enquiry.

(3.) It is the State Government that is empowered to pass an interim order pending the disposal of the appeal, under Sub-clause (3) of clause 8 of the Licensing Order, which reads as follows: