RAMNARAIN PRASAD SANKAR PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer is to quash Annexure 4, a letter dated the 24th Oct. 1975, addressed to the petitioner by the District Supply Officer, respondent No. 2, intimating it that its licence under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers (Licensing) Order (1967), (hereinafter to be referred to as the Order) has been cancelled under the order of the District Magistrate. In order to appreciate the argument advanced at the Bar some facts have to be mentioned.

(2.) The petitioner held a wholesale food-grains dealers licence under the order. Respondent No. 2, the District Supply Officer by a letter dated the 30th June, 1975, asked the petitioner to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled as he was not taking interest in the business of wheat as a result of which the levy paid by him was very little. A copy of the letter dated the 30th June, 1975, has been marked as Annexure 1 to this application. The petitioner filed a show cause stating, inter alia, that it was taking interest in the business of wheat but was unable to deal in large stock as its availability was limited. A copy of the show cause has been marked as Annexure 2 to this writ application. No order seems to have been passed on the show cause filed by the petitioner but he was served with another notice dated the 23rd July, 1975, asking it to get into his stock 500 quintals of wheat by 4-8-1975 and should report compliance with the direction by that date failing which action would be taken for cancellation of his licence. A copy of the notice dated 23rd July, 1975, has been marked as Annexure 3. The petitioner, on receipt of the aforesaid notice, filed show cause stating, inter alia, that wheat was not available at any place outside the State due to restriction in movement and that the local wheat production was small and the local market arrival was also small which was purchased by retailers or by the consumers directly. It was also stated that the purchase of 500 quintals of wheat required a huge capital which the petitioner did not have and that it is doing the transaction in wheat according to its capacity and market requirement. A copy of this show cause has also been filed and has been marked as Annexure 3 (a) to this writ application. Thereafter, it is said that on 24th Oct. 1975, the petitioner was intimated by the District Supply Officer, Chapra, about the cancellation of his licence vide Annexure 4.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which, inter alia, it has been stated that the petitioner has come to this Court without availing the alternative remedy of appeal under the order. It has also been stated that the petitioner was granted licence by the respondent on a clear understanding as laid down in the terms and conditions of the licence that he will carry on the trade as per instructions of the respondent to be issued from time to time in public interest. The assertion of the petitioner that wheat was not available in market has also been denied. Lastly it is said that licence of the petitioner was cancelled as there was gross contravention of the direction given by respondent No. 1, who was competent to issue directions.