LAL BABU PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed for quashing the order dated 6-4-1988 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sardar, Arrah, contained in Annx.-4, cancelling the coal dealer's licence of the petitioner under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Unification Order').

(2.) The petitioner was granted a licence under Cl.4 of the Unification Order, on an application made by the petitioner to the licensing authority in Form 'A' along with the fee, prescribed in Schedule IV. Being satisfied, the licensing authority granted licence to the petitioner to deal in coal and the licence bears the No. 196 of 1985. The said licence was renewed from time to time. The renewal fee for the year 1987 has also been deposited by the petitioner, Vide Letter No. 1032 dated 24-11-1987 (Annx.-2). 2-A. The Sub-divisional Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner in obtaining the aforesaid licence suppressed the fact that his father holds a coal licence. Holding of two licences by the members of the same family amounts to deprivation of employment for unemployed educated persons and, therefore, why the licence granted to him be not cancelled. The petitioner showed cause (Annex.-3) and asserted that there has been no suppression of any fact in obtaining the coal licence. It was stated that after the petitioner did his Matriculation, he having failed to obtain any employment in order to earn his livelihood, thought of starting some business. As he had the experience of coal business, it was decided by him to obtain a licence for the same and start an independent business. He is separate from his father and the business launched is to enable him to maintain his family. The petitioner also stated that he has successfully carried on the coal business with fair reputation, with no complaint from any consumer. It was also submitted that there is no law which prevents the members of the family from carrying their independent livelihood in the same trade article. Therefore the proposed order for cancellation of his licence is without jurisdiction. The respondent authority communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 06-04-1988 (Annex.-4) that his reply to the show cause notice is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as there is no justification for two members of the family to have licence in the same trade article under the Unification Order, and, as such, the licence granted to the petitioner is cancelled.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner as contained in Annex.-4 is wholly without jurisdiction and falls beyond the purview of the order made under S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act. He particularly referred to Cl.11 of the Unification Order and submitted that the power to suspend and cancel a licence is conferred on the authority when the licensee contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence with regard to one or more trade articles by an order in writing of the licensing authority, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the licensee to state his case against the proposed cancellation. According to the learned counsel, there is no allegation that the petitioner has contravened any term and condition of the licence granted to him in Form 'C'. Our attention has also been drawn to Form 'A', which is an application for grant of licence. By reference to the said Form, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not suppressed any fact required to be furnished under the various serial numbers of the said Form. Therefore, there has been no suppression of any fact in obtaining the licence. Mr. Ram Nandan Prasad, learned Standing Counsel No. IV, on the other hand, contended that Form 'A' is a part of the Unification Order. Condition No. 4 of the licence in Form 'C' requires a licensee not to contravene the provisions of the order or any other law relating to the essential commodities for the time being in force. The petitioner's licence has been rightly cancelled for violation of serial No. 7 of Form 'A' which requires the applicant to answer correctly whether the applicant previously held a licence of the trade articles for which licence has now been applied for. Mr. Ram Nandan Prasad, Senior Advocate, further submitted that under Cl.4(5) of the Order, which deals with issue of license, a dealer has been authorised to obtain a licence for any one or more trade articles mentioned in Schedule I, but more than one licence for the same trade article at one place of business in the same or different names shall not be obtained. The action taken against the petitioner is, therefore, justified. Further, the petitioner has alternative remedy provided in the Unification Order by way of appeal before the State Government which he may be asked to exhaust before moving this Court in writ jurisdiction.