PRAHALAD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the order D/- 1-10-1999 as contained in Annexure-4 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Porahat Chakradharpur, whereby and whereunder licence granted to the petitioner under the Provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification Control) Order, 1984 has been cancelled.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that he is having licence No. 16/84 granted under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification Control) Order, 1984 (hereinafter called the Unification Order, 1984) and is carrying on his business of running a fair price shop under the public Distribution System in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Licence. Petitioner was called upon to show cause vide letter No. 313 D/- 21-8-1999 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Porahat, Chakradharpur as to why his licence be not cancelled on the ground that he lifted 25 quintals of rice for the month of May, 1999 on 19-7-1999 and 25 quintals for June, 1999 on 22-7-1999 but he distributed only 4 Kg. of rice per consumer instead of 8 Kg. of rice. It was further alleged in the show-cause notice that during the inspection on 28-7-1999 petitioner was not present in his shop premises. Petitioner filed his show cause on 9-8-1999 and clearly stated that he lifted 25 quintals of rice on 19-7-1999 for the month of May, 1999 and therefore he distributed 4 Kg. of rice per consumer for May, 1999. Petitioner further lifted 25 quintals of rice for the month of June, 1999 and thereafter he distributed 8 Kg. of rice for both May and June, 1999 and the same was entered in the Ration Card of the consumers. He further stated in his show-cause that on 28-7-1999 he had come to Food Corporation of India, Ranchi to lift the quota of Sugar which was also informed to the Food Supply Inspector, Goel Kera. However, dissatisfied with the show-cause the licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the impugned order and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter D/- 1-10-1999.

(3.) Mr. P. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that cancellation of licence of the petitioner is arbitrary, capricious and violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that in the order of cancellation the Licencing authority has not assigned any reason for rejecting the show-cause and the order being non-speaking order cannot be sustained in law. On the other hand, Mr. M. S. Anwar, learned G.P. 1 raised preliminary objection that the impugned order being appellable before the Deputy Commissioner, the writ application is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of complaint received fromthe consumers an inquiry was conducted and it was reported by the Inquiry Officer that the dealer was indulged in suspected conduct which is in violation of the agreement. The Sub-Divisional Officer after considering the complaint of the consumers and the Inquiry report found that the show-cause of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Accordingly the impugned order was passed cancelling the licence of the petitioner.