RAMADHAR BAITHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 22/12/2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority i.e. the respondent no. 4 as also the order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority in Case No. 50 of 2014 dtd. 12/9/2015, whereby and where under the license of the petitioner has been cancelled and the same has been upheld by the Appellate Authority by rejecting the appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a P.D.S. Licensee and he was operating the shop to the satisfaction of all concerned, however, a show cause notice dtd. 6/1/2014 was issued to the petitioner herein and he was charged with violation in getting the stock certified. The petitioner had then submitted his reply stating therein that in absence of Mukhiya the stock could not be certified. Thereafter, a show cause notice dtd. 4/8/2014 was issued to the petitioner pertaining to non-supply of ration in between the period September, 2012 to February, 2013 to which the petitioner had submitted a reply dtd. 4/8/2014, however, no decision was taken by the authorities. Finally another show cause notice dtd. 9/12/2014 was issued to the petitioner herein alleging therein non-distribution of ration for the period January, 2013 to May, 2013 and it was also alleged that the shop was closed on 2/12/2014. The petitioner had then filed his show cause reply, however, the Licensing Authority cancelled the license vide order contained in Memo dtd. 22/12/2014. The petitioner had then filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari, however, the same was also rejected by the impugned order dtd. 12/9/2015.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the impugned orders dtd. 22/12/2014 as also the one dtd. 12/9/2015 are bad in law as also on facts inasmuch as, as far as cancellation on the ground of the shop being closed for one day is concerned, the learned Division Bench of this Court in a judgment dtd. 22/6/2012 passed in CWJC No. 10213 of 2010 (Turant Lal Paswan vs. the State of Bihar and ors.), has held that closure of shop on one particular day is not such a grave violation so as to entail cancellation of license. It has been further submitted that the allegations contained in the show cause notice dtd. 9/12/2014 are vague and further the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sikarhana, Dhaka/Licensing Authority in the impugned order dtd. 22/12/2014 has relied upon the enquiry report of the Circle Officer, which has never been supplied to the petitioner herein, hence the principles of natural justice has not been complied with. It is also the case of the petitioner that by the said show cause notice dtd. 9/12/2014, only three days were granted to the petitioner herein for submitting his show cause reply which in any view of the matter cannot be said to be sufficient. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order dtd. 22/12/2014 would show that the inspection was carried out at the behest of the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari, therefore, there was total lack of application of mind by the Licensing Authority on the issue since the action of the Appellate Authority in getting the inspection done clearly indicates as to what was under contemplation or required to be done in such matter ultimately. Reference in this connection has been made to a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dtd. 5/12/2012 passed in CWJC No. 4463 of 2011.