SHAMBHU KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure-3 is an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kharagpur by which licence of the petitioner was suspended. Though in the body it is mentioned that on the complaints of some consumers, an F.I.R. was instituted against petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the operative part thereof mentions that in terms of clause 7(ii) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, suspension order was being passed and he was being asked to file his show cause as to why his licence may not be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter no further action was taken by the Licensing Authority while the criminal proceeding continued which finally ended in acquittal of petitioner on 18.9.2012 in Trial No. 3557/2012, vide Annexure-4. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application before the Licensing Authority for restoration of his licence in the light of the order passed in the criminal proceeding which was referred to the District Level Selection Committee by the Licensing Authority.

(2.) From the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner, vide Annexure-5, it appears that the District Level Selection Committee decided to cancel the licence of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was acquitted in the trial due to non-appearance of the witnesses.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if suspension of licence was under clause 7(ii) of the Control Order, subsequent punishment of cancellation of licence could not be awarded to the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in LPA No. 15 of 2011, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-6. He submits that in case suspension of licence had been passed on account of institution of a substantive criminal case against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the same had to go on account of his acquittal. He submits that the Selection Committee could not sit over the judgment of the trial court and could not find that there is flaw in the judgment or in conduct of the trial and on that account he could get acquitted. He submits that net result was that petitioner was acquitted by the trial court in the criminal proceeding, for whatever reasons. Hence, the Selection Committee could not go behind the judgment.