VINAY KUMAR AVADHESH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER FERTILIZER REGISTRATION AUTHORITY JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner-firm, who has sued through its partner Avadhesh Kumar, is to command respondent No. 1 to decide its application dated 25.1.1996, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

(2.) The perusal of the document appended as Annexure-1 shows as follows. In furtherance of the directions made by the Collector of the District Jaunpur (i) the Additional District Agriculture Officer, Jaunpur, (ii) the Pargana Magistrate. Machhlishahr and (iii) the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Jaunpur, on 21.7.1994 inspected the premises of the petitioner during which Stock Register, Distribution Register, licence, etc. was not produced nor was the Stock Board exhibited and accordingly recommended penal action against the petitioner. Taking into account the seriousness of the irregularities vide Office Order No. 1812 dated 22.7.1994, the licence of the petitioner was suspended under Section 31 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the petitioner was asked to file its show-cause along with the relevant record within one week of that order, which was despatched by Registered Post No. 767 dated 28.7.1994 which was refused to be accepted by the proprietor of the petitioner-firm. Thereafter vide Officer Letter No. 2389 dated 17.8.1994, a reminder was sent giving a further opportunity for filing of the show-cause and the records within three days, still neither the show-cause was filed nor were the documents produced. On the directions of the District Magistrate on 14.11.1994, the Pargana Magistrate and the Up-Sambhagiya Krishi Prasar Adhikari. Machhlishahr re-inspected the Sale Centre of the petitioner during which its proprietor was present but again the relevant records were not produced by the proprietor of the firm. On the recommendation of the Pargana Magistrate that as the firm is illegally continuing to sell fertilizer and thus a strong penal action be taken, vide Office Letter No. 3082 dated 16.11.1994 another notice was given to the firm that if it fails to file show-cause within one week, then registration certificate shall be cancelled. The said letter also had no effect on the Proprietor of the firm nor was any show-cause filed on behalf of the petitioner. On 4.1.1995 during review of the Fertilizer Control, the Pargana Magistrate apprised the illegal trade of fertilizer by the petitioner-firm to the Collector. Jaunpur and strongly recommended for cancellation of the registration certificate of the firm in the aforementioned backdrop. In this context, after thorough consideration, the District Magistrate/Chairman, Fertilizer Co-ordination Committee, Jaunpur directed for cancellation of the registration certificate of the firm. Accordingly, the District Agriculture Officer/Fertilizer Control Authority. Jaunpur cancelled with immediate effect the registration certificate of the petitioner-firm under the provisions of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 directing the petitioner firm to dispose of the available stock in its sale centre within 30 days/one month with a warning that if it is found to violate the said order in that event all available stock will be seized.

(3.) Vide Annexure-2 Avadhesh Kumar Gupta, prayed for recalling the order dated 19.1.1995 (as contained in Annexure-1) on the grounds, inter alia, that no notice was served on him nor had he received any notice dated 28.7.1994 or 17.8.1994 or 16.11.1994 ; that he was not handed over the recommendation and the directions referred to in the order aforementioned ; that fertilizer certificate has been cancelled without giving him adequate opportunity of hearing ; that in many cases the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Officer, who has passed an ex parte order, has got competence to nullify his ex parte order, even if such power has not been mentioned appending copy of the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Chandra Upadhyay v. Passenger Tax Officer, 1986 UPTC 837. He also prayed for giving him a photostat copy of the recommendations and thereafter an opportunity of hearing and pass orders.