MALEK HOSSAIN Vs. STATE O WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an M.R. dealer and kerosene oil dealer of Bhagabanpur, P.S. Harishchandrapur, District - Malda, was proceeded against for violation of terms and conditions of the concerned Control Orders in course of carrying on business. By separate orders dated November 1, 2012, the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Malda terminated the said dealerships. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the order terminating the M.R. dealership was rejected by an order dated March 25, 2013 passed by the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Malda, being the first appellate authority. A further appeal filed by the petitioner before the Regional Joint Director, Food & Supplies, Siliguri was also dismissed by an order dated August 20, 2013. These orders form the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the proceedings initiated against him by the respondent authorities for termination of the said dealerships reveal scant regard for compliance with the principles of natural justice. Certain complaints of customers were looked into without furnishing copies thereof to the petitioner. Allegations not forming part of the composite show cause notice, which could not have been issued, were found to have been proved by the Sub-Divisional Controller. The defence raised by the petitioner was not given the consideration the same deserved and the orders passed at the several tiers reveal that the same are all unreasoned. He, accordingly, prays for setting aside of such orders and for direction on the Sub-Divisional Controller to permit the petitioner resume his business.

(2.) Per contra, Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate representing the respondents, submits that the petitioner was given adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The defence raised by him did not appeal to the respondents to be creditworthy and accordingly, penal steps were taken for having violated the terms and conditions of the Control Orders. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner is an unscrupulous dealer who has indulged in various misdeeds as appearing from the show cause notice and that even if there be some defect in the process, the Court should not come to his rescue since such defects do not have the effect of vitiating such process. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials on record.