RADHA KRISHNA SAH, SON OF BANSH BIHARI SAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR; DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT COLLECTOR; SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND THE SUPPLY INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a licensee for distribution of grains under the Public Distribution System. On certain inspection and allegation, while suspending his licence, a proceeding for cancellation of his licence was initiated by the Subdivisional Officer, Dumraon, district - Buxar. The petitioner responded by filing a detailed show cause. The licensing authority, who is a statutory authority and who had issued the notice and to whom the show cause was filed, referred the matter to the Block Supply Officer for his opinion. The Block Supply Officer made enquiries as to the defence of the petitioner and the allegation against him and gave an opinion adverse to the petitioner. On the opinion being so filed, as apparent from the impugned order of the Subdivisional Officer dated 01.11.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ application), the Subdivisional Officer, without disclosing the said report to the petitioner, merely accepts the report and the opinion of the Block Supply Officer and cancels the licence of the petitioner. Petitioner then prefers a statutory appeal before the learned Collector, Buxar. The Collector, Buxar dismissed the appeal by his order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure-4). In the appeal, he notes that principles of natural justice have been complied. Petitioner was heard. Reports were adverse to the petitioner and, as such, the licence was rightly cancelled. These two orders are under challenge on ground of procedural infirmity.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(3.) So far as principles of natural justice are concerned, it is not merely hearing a party before passing an order adverse to him. The hearing has to be a fair hearing. There are two important aspects which should be kept in mind. First, all materials, which are before the officer concerned on which the decision is to be based, must be disclosed to the party concerned. Secondly, the authority has to apply his own independent mind to the issues in question. He cannot take a decision merely because someone has opined one way or the other. On both these counts, the impugned order of Subdivisional Officer cannot be sustained.