TRUAN KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENAGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the sub-Divisional Controller, Department of Food and Supplies, Balurghat, dakshin Dinajpur dated 20th December, 2007. By this order two licenses held by the petitioner under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 and the West Bengal Kerosene control Order, 1968 have been terminated.

(2.) TODAY, along with the writ petition, an application being CAN No. 789 of 2008 has also been moved. In this application, the applicants claim to be ration card holders connected to the petitioner's ration shop and it is contended by them that it was at their complaint the composite proceeding was initiated. On the strength of being the original complainants at whose instance the proceeding against the petitioner was initiated, the applicants' prayer is fof being added as party respondents to this proceeding. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, I am satisfied that they have right to be heard, in this matter and accordingly I permit them to intervene in this application.

(3.) NOW I shall take up the petitioner's case on merit. Prior to the issuance of the termination order, a show-cause notice was issued which is Annexure "p3 to the writ petition. The petitioner had replied to the show-cause notice. Opportunity of hearing was given to him and only upon hearing him the order of termination order was passed. Mr. Saha Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the show-cause notice and the order of termination ensuing therefrom are not sustainable as in a single proceeding, the petitioner's license being granted under the two separate control Orders cannot be terminated. The second ground of challenge is that in the show-cause notice, there was no charge against the petitioner alleging violatlon of the provisions of kerosene control order and thus so far as the termination of the petitioner's license under the Kerosene Control Order is concerned, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of being informed of the substance of the charges against him which he could have dealt with in his reply. Mr. Saha Roy has relied on two unreported decisions of this Court in the, case of Mashiar Rahman Biswas vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , in w. P. No. 20414 (W) of 2007, delivered on 20th September, 2007 and in the case of Kalyani Prosad Pandey vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , in W. P. No. 8534 (W)of 1998, delivered on 9th June, 1998. Both these authorities have been cited in support of the proposition that a composite notice of show-cause alleging violation of the provisions of two Control Orders is not sustainable.