ABDUL RAHIM Vs. DY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court : The case arises out of a Rule issued by Sabyasachi Mukharji J. directing the Deputy Controller of Rationing (Establishment), Government of West Bengal, to show cause why by a writ of mandamus, he should not be made to withdraw or cancel, or rescind an order dated March 3, 1971 by which the ration quota of cereals allotted to the petitioner, who is the owner of a cheap catering establishment in the city, was reduced from 810 Kgs. to 155 Kgs. per week. By the said Rule his Lordship also directed the Deputy Controller to show cause why the said order should not be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(2.) THE facts may briefly be stated. The petitioner has been carrying on the business of a catering establishment, picturesquely described as an eating house, at 13, Sun Yat Sen Street, Calcutta. He holds a ration permit for 800 Kgs. of cereals per week for the purpose of his business. By a notice dated 6th August, 1969 he was directed by the Deputy Controller to show causes why his quota of cereals should not be reduced to 154. 50 Kgs. per week. After several adjournments of the case, the petitioner received a notice on the 27th July, 1970 directing him to appear personally before the respondent No. 2, the Special Officer. The Special Officer gave the petitioner a hearing on the 19th January, 1971. The Deputy Controller of Rationing says in his affidavit that at the hearing given on that date the petitioner, in spite of requests, failed to produce sales tax returns, sales tax clearance certificate, or any other documents or papers. The petitioner, however, denies that he was asked to produce any of these documents. Be that as it may, by an order dated March 3, 1971 the petitioner's cereal quota was reduced to 155 Kgs. per week by the Deputy Controller. Against that order the petitioner moved the Writ Court and obtained the Rule.

(3.) THE grounds taken by the petitioner are : (a) The Deputy Controller of Rationing had issued the order without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard by himself (b) the respondent No. 1 had no authority and/or jurisdiction to pass any order on the basis of an enquiry held by the respondent No. 2 (c) the order does not disclose any reason for reducing the petitioner's quota of cereals. It is not disputed that the order made by the Deputy Controller of Rationing (Establishment) reducing the ration quota of the petitioner, was made under clause 10 (iii) of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. The clause provides :