RAJENDRA RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted as follows: A show casue notice dated 27.10.2010 was issued to the Petitioner saying that the Superintendent of Police has recommended for cancellation of licence and the villagers have made complaint to the Deputy Commissioner. The show cause notice was absolutely vague. The alleged violation were not indicated. However, Petitioner filed show cause in view of the allegations made in the F.I.R.. The licence has been cancelled on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner. It is said that the Petitioner could not prove his innocence only by denying the allegations. The licence has been cancelled under the P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001 (as amended) whereas, this order has not been made applicable in this State in the absence of the orders required to be issued by the State Government, under the relevant provisions of this Order. Filing of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner will be an empty formality.

(2.) Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned State counsel on the other hand submitted that in the absence of counter affidavit, he is not in a position to accept or controvert the submissions made in the writ petition.

(3.) It appears that the show cause notice was vague, and it was issued on the recommendation of Superintendent of Police. It further appears that the licence has been cancelled on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner. The complaint made by the villagers was not mentioned in the show cause notice.