SRINATH SINGH Vs. S K BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application had been a dealer in foodgrains prior to 1964. After the enforcement of West Bengal Rationing Order. 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the said order), he was appointed a retail dealer having a ration shop at 10, Hastings Street. Calcutta being A. R. Shop No. 2598 and is carrying on business as such. The petitioner receives stock of foodgrains from the respondents and sells the same to persons who are ration card holders numbering 4100. According to the petitioner's case, in course of business, he complained to the authorities about bad quality of foodgrains. The petitioner's employee the respondent No. 8 who had earlier represented to the petitioner to part with Rs. 1,000/- as advance, inadvertently made on June 13, 1972 some cash-memos for NBSF rice though NMB rice was supplied. The petitioner immediately contacted the customers and returned the excess amount inadvertently realised and informed and explained the matter to the Rationing Officer. Bowbazar of his own accord. At this the respondent No. 7 passed an order on June 14, 1972 calling upon the petitioner to explain the matter within seven days. It appears that on June 16, 1972, an order was issued by Shri S. K. Battacharjee, Director of Rationing (Respondent No. 1) informing the petitioner that there was a report about his selling N. B. M. (Boiled) rice at Rs. 1.41 instead of Rs. 1.24 and he was asked to snow cause to the Enquiry Officer appointed for the purpose within seven days as to why his appointment should not be revoked under para. 3 (5) to the said order. On the same date there was another order by the said authority informing the petitioner that as It was necessary in public interest to suspend his appointment pending enquiry, in exercise of powers under proviso to para, 3 (5) thereof his appointment was suspended with immediate effect By another order of the Rationing Officer Respondent No. 7, incorporated in the preceding order all ration cards of the petitioner's shop were transferred and relinked to other shops. All these orders were served on the petitioner at 6 p. m. on June 16, 1972.

(2.) The petitioner contended that there was never any complaint against him and the said order of suspension was mala fide, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Rationing Order, the petitioner's business would be completely stopped thereby, causing irreparable loss and injury to him. It was further contended that under para. 5 (3) of the said order there could be no order of suspension without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The Rationing Officer, Bowbazar has also no jurisdiction or authority to transfer all existing valid ration cards of the petitioner's shop and to relink them to another shop. On these allegations and contentions the petitioner moved the application in this Court on June 17, 1972 at my residence on leave granted by the Chief Justice in the special circumstances of the case on the prayer of the petitioner against the interim order of suspension. After hearing Mr. Arun Kumar Dutta (Sr.), the Court fixed the hearing of the application on June 20, 1972 on notice to the respondents Nos. 2 and 7 and in the meantime an interim order was issued restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order of interim suspension of the petitioner's appointment The petitioner was granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit as prayed for.

(3.) Mr. Siblal Bose, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 7 had appeared on June 20, 1972 and directions were given for affidavits while the interim order has been continued. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in which it was stated that excess price was collected deliberately by his employee the respondent No. 8 who, as already stated, made a demand of Rs. 1,000/- off the petitioner on threat of dire consequences for some "alleged reasons", which demand was declined by the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to the officers of the Rationing Office apprehending trouble. It was further stated that during his appointment as such dealer there was never any specific complaint against him. On June 14, 1972, the shop was visited by some officer of the department who made an inspection note asking the petitioner to explain about the excess price realised (Annex. X). Further visit to the shop was made on June 15, 1972 by some other officer who found shortage in stock within allowable limit. The petitioner on coming to know of the excess charge, took steps to refund the amount. In this state of affairs, the orders of June 16, 1972 were not passed in bona fide exercise of power or authority, depriving the petitioner of his trade or business and without allowing him to submit defence.