SURAJ COAL TRADERS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and we propose to dispose of the writ petition on the merits at the admission stage.

(2.) M /s. Suraj Coal Traders, the Petitioner, is a proprietary firm situated in Varanasi. It deals in coal. The Petitioner was a licencee in Form B, a whole sale dealer under the U.P. Coal Control Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as Control Order). The Petitioner alleged that he deals only in slack coal and free sale coal. He brings slack coal by road to its depot for the purposes of sale to its customers. According to the Petitioner, free sale coal which constitutes hard coke, steam coal, slack coal, soft coke and all other derivatives of non cooking coal, are decontrolled commodity under the notifications issued by the Central Government from time to time. According to the Petitioner, the State Government has suspended the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act as well as Control Order in respect of slack coal which is brought by road. One such notification is dated 3rd June, 1982. The Petitioner made an application for the renewal of his licence for the year 1985 -86 to the District Supply Officer Varanasi. The Petitioner's case further is that he is a licensee since 1979 and there is no charge against him for non compliance pr contravention of any of the provisions of the Control Order. On the 28th of March, 1983 he was informed by the District Supply Officer Varanasi that his licence had been cancelled and he was handed over a cyclostyled order on the same day. The above order showed that on 25th February, 1988, Senior Inspector had made an inspection and during the inspection neither the licensee nor any of his agents could be met at the place of business. Neither the stock board, rate board or licence could be seen. The conclusion drawn was that the licensee was not doing any business at the specified plots of land and therefore he had contravened the provisions of the Control Order. Consequently, the District Supply Officer passed an order rejecting his application for the renewal of the licence. The Petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 226 and challenged the above order on the ground that no notice was given to the Petitioner before passing the order of refusal of licence and as such the order was against the principles of natural justice, and since the Control Order in respect of slack coal had been suspended by the State Government, the District Supply Officer acted illegally In refusing to renew the licence. The Petitioner also challenged that there was any inspection made by the Inspector on 25th February, 1985 as also the fact that the depot of the Petitioner did not exist on plot No. 82/1 and 82/2.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Ram Chandra Tripathi, Senior Inspector in the office of the District Supply Officer, Varanasi. A perusal of paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit shows that no notice or opportunity was given to the Petitioner before refusing the renewal of his licence. The stand taken by the Respondents is that no notice or opportunity is contemplated before passing any order under Clause 5(c) of the Control Order and as such there was no occasion for giving any notice.