LAWS(PAT)-2000-9-57

ANJANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On September 27, 2000
ANJANI KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 18.8.2000 passed by the Special Officer, Rationing, Patna, contained in Annexure -6, cancelling the agreement in respect of public distribution shop in Ward no. 3 and consequently held that his licence bearing no. 126/85 automatically ended.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was dealing in sugar under P.D.S. vide licence No. 126/85 as also in clothes, edible oils, kerosene oil, food -grains under the said licence. Vide An -nexure -2 his said licence was suspended on account of the fact that in course of enquiry on 7.2.1988 his P.D.S. shop was found closed in between 4 and 7 in the evening and on enquiry from some local people it was reported that his shop usually remains closed. The petitioner was required to file his show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled and in pursuance to it the petitioner personally appeared and filed his show cause on the very first day fixed in the matter. It is alleged that thereafter the hearing of the matter was put up on various dates, and the petitioner kept waiting for the result. It is claimed by the petitioner that in his show cause, he clearly stated that sudden illness of his mother required immediate attention of the Doctor, which compelled him to close his shop on 7.2.1988 for treatment in second half of the day. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner has not contravened any terms and conditions of the licence and, as such, the impugned orders are contrary to law. It is also contended that the suspension order was illegally continued beyond the period of 90 days, which is the maximum period prescribed under clause 11 of the Unification Order for continuance of suspension during the pendency of the enquiry. As such, it is contended that the suspension is a nullity.

(3.) IT is contended that the entire proceeding was conducted with snail speed and after the order of this Court the impugned order has been hurriedly passed without giving him any opportunity of being heard. It is submitted that the reasons assigned for cancellation of the shop of the petitioner are mere imaginary and not based on any reasonings rather the same appears to be a result of bias approach of the Special Officer, Incharge Marketing, Patna (Respondent no. 4).