GOOGAN LAL MARWARI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order (copy whereof is annexture 4 to this writ application) dated 14-4-1977 of the Additional District Magistrate (Supply) cum Special Officer Incharge Rationing, Dhanbad, by which the learned Additional District Magistrate (Supply) has cancelled three licences held by the petitioner Messrs. Googan Lal Marwari. The first licence was a wholesale dealer's licence under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Foodgrains Order) the se cond licence was a retail dealer's licence issued under the Bihar Vanaspati Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter called the Vanaspati Order) and the third licence was wholesale dealer's licence issued under the Bihar Edible Oils Wholesale Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter to be called the Edible Oils Order).

(2.) The relevant facts are these. On 2-7-1976 the learned Additional District Magistrate (Supply), Dhanbad, alongwith others, inspected the busi ness establishment of the petitioner and found certain irregularities there in which will be detailed later on. By his office memo no. 2059 dated 10-7-76 (copy whereof is Annexure 2 to this writ application) the Special Officer Incharge Rationing detailed the irregularities found at the time of inspection and called upon the petitioner to show cause before him on 25-7-76 why in view of the aforesaid serious irregularities, its licences under the aforesaid three Licensing Orders be not cancelled. It was stated in the aforesaid notice (Annexure 2) that the articles in the shop were not kept arranged as a result of which there was serious inconvenience during the time of inspection and that this amounted to contravention of conditions 9 and 12 of the licence under the Foodgrains Order. It was further stated in this notice ask ing the petitioner to show cause that on physical verification of the stocks kept in the godown and examination of the stock registers, it was found that the stock of rice was in excess by one bag and the stocks of atta (wheat flour) gram including chunni, mustard oil, badam oil and Vanaspati were short by 20 bags, 2 bags, 41 tins, 14 tins and 2 tins respectively, and that this amount ed to contravention of condition no. 3 of the licence under the Foodgrains Order, condition no. 4 of the licence under the Edible Oil Order and condi tion no. 3 of the licence under the Vanaspati Order. It was further stated therein that because of these shortages and irregularities found, its (petitio ner's stock book, cash memos and the goods, whose stock was found short, had been seized and a case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 instituted. The petitioner submitted a petition in writing dated 24-7-1976 (copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the writ petition) to the Special Officer Incharge Rationing showing cause and praying that the proceedings be dropped. The petitioner stated that it had afforded facilities for inspec tion and there was no difficulty in counting or checking the stocks and one variety of pulse was kept separately for convenience of customers and, that therefore, there was no violation of condition no. 12 of the licence under the Foodgrains Order. As regards allegation of shortage or excess in the stocks of various articles, the explanation given was that actually there was no shortage or excess in any of the commodities but there was misunder standing which could not be cleared up because the main managing partner of the firm was not present at the time of inspection. The explanation given was that, one bag of rice found in excess did not form part of the stock in trade of the dealer but represented rice purchased for his personal consump tion. As regards the shortage of 20 bags of atta, it was stated that the shortage was due to fact that credit sales to 4 customers on 2-7-1976 of 5 bags of atta each under credit memos 4 to 7 were not taken into accounts. The shortage of 2 bags of gram was sought to be explained by stating that it was sold to one Bhuneshwar Yadav and the cash memo was not issued at the time because the gram had gone for grinding, to the mill and cash memo was to be issued after it was received back after grinding. The ex planation for the shortage of 2 tins of Vanaspati was that these 2 tins had been sold and the cash memo evidencing tht sale had escaped the notice of the raiding party. The shortage in the stock of mustard oil and groundnut oil was explained on the basis of sales on credit on that very date under credit memo nos, 1 and 2 respectively of that date. It was also stated in the petition showing cause that since a criminal prosecution for an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 had been instituted and the case was still to be investigated and tried, the matter should not be prejudced. The petition went on to say that the petitioner was prepared to satisfy the authority by appearing in person that he was innocent and that he was prepared to furnish any order and further information required. It appears thereafter the impugned order dated 14-4-1977 was passed.

(3.) Mr. S. B. Sanyal, the learned Advocate for petitioner, urges that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, void and fit to be set aside. He argues that the principles of natural justice have been violated on two counts- firstly, because the learned Additional District Magistrate was, by reason of his bias, disqualified from adjudging the matter and passing the order as he combined in himself the functions of a judge, prosecutor and witness and secondly because the petitioner was denied a reasodable opportunity of showing cause against the cancellation of licences because he was denied an opportunity of being heard in the matter and putting forward his case and also because he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of controverting materials adverse to him.