GOPILAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five civil writ jurisdiction cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. C. W. J. C. No. 2652 of 1976 is for quashing Annexure 2 and order dated the 9th November, 1976 cancelling the licence of the petitioner of that case, as well as the notice (Annexure 1) dated the 11th Oct. 1976 calling upon him why his licence should not be cancelled. In the other four cases prayer has been for quashing notices calling upon the petitioner in each case to show cause why his licence be not cancelled. The petitioners of all the cases are dealers in cloths and licensees under Bihar Cotton, Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1956. It appears that godown of one Banwari Lal Sah was raided on 1st April, 1974 and 392 bales of cotton cloth and five bales of woollen cloth were seized. The petitioners claim that most of these bales belonged to them. They had stored them in the godowns of Banawari Lal Sah as they had no sufficient space in their shops which are situated in Suaganj Bazar in the town of Bhagalpur. The ground given in the notices for cancelling the licences of the petitioner is that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioners for they had not notified the place where they had stored their cloths. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner have urged that there is nothing in the Cloth and Yarn Control Order or in the contents of licences issued to the petitioner requiring them to notify the place of storage of their stock and as such the notices were misconceived and the authorities issuing them had no iurisdiction to issue them.

(2.) It has been urged on behalf of the State that in view of Clause 3 of the said Order read with the licence In Form B, the petitioners were required to notify the place of storage of their stock and that was to be stated in the licence itself. It has been pointed out that according to Clause 4 (3) of the Order the petitioners were required to have a licence in Form B. It has further been urged on behalf of the State that in view of Article 226, as it stands after the recent amendment (42nd amendment of the Constitution) which has come into effect from 1st February, 1977, the writ applications of the petitioners were not maintainable and no relief could be granted to them. As in our opinion there is substance in the contention that the writ applications of the petitioners are not maintainable after the amendment of Article 226, we do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the petitioners were required to notify the place of storage of their stocks and licences issued to them were liable to be cancelled on the ground that they were storing stock of their cloth at a place which was not notified and not mentioned in the licence. Under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution (as it stands after amendment), a High Court can issue a writ.

(3.) Clause (3) of the amended Article 226- provides that-