ABDUL RAJJAQUE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a retail fertilizer dealer registered under Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (In short, "Control Order"). On 13.11.2012 on some confidential information, one godown situated on the land of one Md. Rahid was inspected by the respondents. In the godown 759 bags of fertilizer were found manufactured by Tishta Agro Industry Limited, West Bengal. The said industry was not registered with the Bihar Government and its products were banned from sale in the State. Hence it was suspected that the fertilizer bags had been smuggled in the State for the purposes of black-marketing. Information had been received that the godown was hired by petitioner. However, at the time of raid and search, petitioner fled away from the spot. The fertilizer was seized and entrusted to one Parmanand Sah under entrustment undertaking. Since smuggling of banned fertilizer and attempt of its black-marketing in the State constitute an offence, an F.I.R. was registered on the same day with the local police against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.11.2012 by the District Agriculture Officer, Araria, vide Annexure-4, calling upon him to show cause as to why his licence may not be cancelled. Petitioner filed his reply on 29.11.2012, vide Annexure-5. However, by the impugned order dated 30.11.2012, as contained in Annexure-1, licence of the petitioner was suspended. This order of suspension of licence is under challenge in this writ application.

(2.) Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner were two fold, namely, first that since no final order had been passed within 15 days of the order of suspension, the suspension order stood revoked by operation of law in terms of second proviso to sub-clause (2) of Clause 31 of the Control Order, 1985 and secondly, that the order of suspension of licence was in the wake of the F.I.R. instituted against the petitioner, for which there was no provision in the Control Order. He also submitted that since suspension order stood revoked by operation of law, this Court is

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents in which it is stated that the manufacturer, namely, Tista Agro Industry Limited, West Bengal, was not registered in the State and therefore, its fertilizer was smuggled in the State for black-marketing in violation of the provisions of the Control Order. It is also stated that the godown was hired by petitioner for storing the fertilizer. Hence, action has been taken against him in accordance with law. It is also stated that action has been taken against the petitioner in terms of sub-clause (1) of Clause 31 of the Control Order and not in terms of sub-clause (2) of Clause 31 thereof. It is also stated that petitioner has remedy by way of appeal in terms of Clause 32A of the Control Order and hence, the writ application is misconceived.