MONCHOP ALI MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition dated September 8th, 2008 is questioning the order of the Sub-divisional Controller (Fands) and Ex Officio assistant Director, Baruipur, South 24-Parganas dated September 1 st, 2008, at p. 18.

(2.) THE allegations in the order are these. A squad headed by the chief Inspector of the office of the District Controller, Food and Supplies, south 24-Parganas after inspecting the S. K. Oil Shop of the petitioner on august 1 st, 2008 at 11 -30 a. m. found the following irregularities; there was no stock board, rate board, or any approved board indicating the proprietor's name with license No. and address any where near or outside or inside the shop premises; bags of paddy were stored, inside the S. K. Oil Shop; the petitioner failed to produce Government license of K. oil shop, log book, inspection book, stock register, sales register, cash memo book, ration card register at the time of inspection. It has further been stated in the order that the petitioner submitted a written declaration about his inability to provide s. K. oil license, log book, inspection book, stock register, sales register, cash memo book, ration card register, etc. as the documents were not in his custody at the time of enquiry; and that he had been punished earlier by forfeiture of security deposit for violation of West Bengal Public Distribution system (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003, and was warned not to commit any irregularity in future. It has been alleged that he, in the capacity of an s. K. oil dealer intentionally violated his duties and responsibilities mentioned in para 15 (c) of the West Bengal'kerosene Control Order, 1968. Making the allegations the sub-divisional controller ordered as follows : -"i therefore in exercise of the power conferred upon me under para 9 of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and subsequent amendment order No. 3575/fs/sectt/sup/4m~52/02 dt. 24/11/03 do hereby suspend the S. K. Oil dealership Licence bearing No. 118/ joy/90 of Sri Monchhop All Mondal temporarily with effect from the date of receipt of this order and hereby Sri Mondal is therefore, asked to submit show cause within 7 (seven) days of the receipt of this order and response why disciplinary action will not be taken against him".

(3.) THE petitioner took out the writ petition contending that in view of the provision of para 9 of the control order the sub-divisional controller was not competent to issue the order suspending the petitioner's dealership license and at the same time asking him to show case why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Considering his case, this Court made order dated September 11th, 2008 admitting the writ petition and staying the operation of the order of suspension, but making it clear that pendency of the writ petition or making of the interim order therein would not prevent the authority from proceeding with hearing of the explanation given in response to the show cause notice and taking such steps as would be permissible in law after such hearing was concluded. It was further said that in the absence of conclusion of such hearing the interim order would remain in force for that period specified. I am told that the interim order is still in force.