SALAMATRAI Vs. COLLECTOR RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case prays that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing an order passed on 8th January 1964 by the Collector, Raipur, as Licensing Officer under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act), suspending for a period of six months the license granted to the petitioner under the Act for carrying on rice -milling operation in his rice -mill. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Food and Civil Supplies against the Licensing Officer's order, who, while maintaining the suspension of the licence, reduced the period of suspension to two months. A writ of certiorari is sought for quashing this order also.

(2.) THE facts are that on the basis of an inspection of the petitioner's account books by the Food Inspector, Raipur, on 30th November 1963, a notice signed by the Food Officer, as "Food Officer, for Collector, Raipur" was issued to the applicant on 3rd December, 1963, telling him that the stock of rice and paddy as shown in his account books and as actually found with him on physical verification did not tally; that the stock actually found was less than the quantity shown as "opening balance"; that it appeared that he had sold some rice without keeping any accounts thereof; that on 30th November 1963 he had sold and despatched eight bags of rice to Bhilai; that he did not issue any cash -memo for this sale and did not also enter the transaction in his account books; and that thus he had committed a breach of rule 9 (1) of the Rice -Milling Industry (Regulation and Licensing) Rules, 1059. The notice asked him to show cause within a week of its receipts as to "why action should not be taken against you (the petitioner) and your milling licence revoked". The petitioner submitted his explanation in writing to the Food Officer on 9th December, 1963 endeavouring to show that he had not committed any breach of the aforesaid rule 9 (1). The Food Office; them placed before the Collector the report of the Food Inspector and the explanation given by the applicant to the show -cause notice issued to him. The Collector heard the petitioner on 24th December 1963 and thereafter passed the impugned order. The Collector rejected the petitioner's explanation that he had kept some stock and paddy in a godown rented by him in Prakash Rice -Mill, and found that when the stock was checked on 30th November 1963, there was unaccounted deficiency of 152.64 quintals of rice and 32, 13 quintals of paddy, and that thus on account of this shortage the petitioner had committed a breach of rule 9 (1) of the said Rules.

(3.) IN our judgment, this contention must be given effect to. Section 7 (1) of the Act, which deals with revocation and suspension of follows -