ENAMUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur dated 6th June, 2011 (Annexure-3), whereby, the license given to the petitioner for running the fair price shop was cancelled.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly submitted that no adequate notice is given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is an admitted fact, even as per paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that only two days' time was given to give reply of the show cause notice, issued by the respondents and in fact, the petitioner has given a reply, it has not been considered, at all, by the respondents. In fact, time given by the respondents is highly insufficient, which tantamounts to violation of principle of natural justice. Moreover, several documents have been relied upon while passing the impugned order by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur, but, not a single document has been given to the petitioner and, therefore also, there is violation of principle of natural justice. Some report has been called for by the Sub Divisional Officer. Pakur and the same has never been given to the petitioner and it has been relied upon while passing the impugned order. Similarly, some statements of the alleged ration card holders have been recorded, but, none of the statements have been supplied to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to defend its case and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded to the concerned appellate authority so as to give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to represent its case.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that notice was given to the petitioner, as stated in the counter-affidavit, before passing the impugned order. The reply was given after the time limit is over and, therefore, the same has not been considered by the respondents It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the documents, relied upon by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur while passing the impugned order, have not been supplied to the petitioner. Nonetheless, the appeal is provided against the impugned order and, therefore, the petition may not be entertained by this Court, at this stage.