LAWS(CAL)-2008-6-16

STEPHEN MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On June 16, 2008
STEPHEN MONDAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present application challenges the order of termination of his dealership of public distribution commodities. The impugned order was passed on 20th November 2007. The text of the order is reproduced below:

(2.) THE petitioner was granted license for running the business of dealership under the prevailing control order in pursuance of an agreement dated 18th november 1980 made between the state government and the petitioner, which appears to have been modified subsequently. The licence was granted to the petitioner in respect of such dealership for sale of ration commodities and this position continued till about 8th January 2005. At that time it appears that the assistant District Controller (Food and Supplies) had inspected the shop of the petitioner and submitted a report to the Sub-divisional Controller (Food and supplies), Krishnanagar on his inspection.

(3.) ON the basis of such report, which appears to have had gone against the petitioner, a notice to show cause was issued to him by the said Sub-divisional controller alleging certain irregularities in running of his business. The allegations included charging of excess price, non-issuance of cash memo, failure to display any signboard indicating the existence of the M. R. shop, non-display of 'bpl and AAI' lists etc. There was also allegation of adopting malpractices by recordal of false entries in the stock register and sale register. This notice was issued on 8th February 2005. This was replied to by the petitioner, denying the allegations. Thereafter, by a communication dated on 28th February 2005 he was informed that his reply was 'neither specific nor convincing and also not based on facts', and he was requested to appear before the Sub-divisional Controller at his office chamber at 2 p. m. on 7th March 2005 with all documentary evidence in support of his reply. The petitioner claims to have attended the office of the said authority on the appointed date, and it is his case that the matter was heard on that date, but hearing was not concluded, and the particular individual who was holding that post had subsequently retired.