BHAVESH CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the threshold of hearing of this case, this Court enquired from learned counsel for the petitioner whether petitioner will like to avail the alternative remedy of revision before the Divisional Commissioner, against the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, available to him in terms of Clause 15(b) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, Notification G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20.2.2007 (in short "the 2001 Control Order"). But he insisted that the matter be heard on merits and decided by this Court. Hence this order on merits. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing of the order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the Collector, Araria in Appeal Case No. 11/2011-12, whereby the order dated 9.7.2011, passed by the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria, cancelling the licence of the petitioner under the Public Distribution System, has beep affirmed and his appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case in chronological order are that initially through a letter dated 21.7.2010 issued under the signature of District Supply Officer, Araria, as contained in Annexure-1, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner containing five charges. He was asked to submit his reply by 30.7.2010 and show cause as to why action under appropriate provisions of law may not be initiated against him. Accordingly, petitioner filed his reply on the last date before the District Supply Officer, vide Annexure-2. Vide Annexure-3 dated 7.8.2010, the same was forwarded by the District Supply Officer to the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Araria with his comments. Matter was thereafter considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority and orders were passed, contained in memo No. 507 dated 10.8.2010, vide Annexure-4, by which petitioner's licence was cancelled. Petitioner moved in appeal against the said order before the Collector, Araria. His appeal was considered and disposed of by order, as contained in memo No. 586 dated 26.5.2011, vide Annexure-5. The Appellate Authority found that before the order was passed by the Licensing Authority, cancelling the licence of the petitioner, proper opportunity had not been granted to the petitioner in accordance with law. Hence, the order was not in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7(iv) of the 2001 Control Order. The order of the Licensing Authority was therefore quashed and the matter was remanded back to him with direction to comply with the provisions of the said clause and to pass a reasoned speaking order. The Licensing Authority accordingly issued a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner through his letter No. 334 dated 10.6.2011, vide Annexure-6. In the notice, five charges were mentioned and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply within two days along with relevant registers and cash-memos and to show-cause as to why action may not be taken against him under the provisions of the 2001 Control Order. Petitioner submitted his reply, vide Annexure-7 (date is not available on the document). The said reply of the petitioner was considered by the Licensing Authority, who, by his order dated 9.7.2011, vide Annexure-8, found the same as not satisfactory and, therefore, cancelled his licence. Petitioner moved in appeal against the said order before the Collector this time also, which was registered as Appeal No. 11/2011-12. The same was considered and by the impugned order it has been rejected.

(3.) The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, during the hearing were (i) that in the second show cause notice, issued by the Licensing Authority, specific provision under which action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner was not mentioned; (ii) that only two days time was allowed to the petitioner by the notice to file his reply; (iii) that the materials in support of the charges were not accompanied with and supplied to the petitioner with the show cause notice; (iv) that there was no proper consideration of petitioner's reply by the Licensing Authority and (v) that the Appellate Authority did not consider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order dealing with his stand in appeal. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed. reliance on an order passed by a Bench of this Court dated 6.3.2013 in CWJC No. 19335 of 2011.