DILIP PRASAD JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 16/5/2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 in Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2014 as well the order as contained in memo No. 485 dtd. 27/8/2013 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 by which the license granted to the petitioner under Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 20011 has been cancelled.

(2.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was granted a license being license No. 18 of 1989 under the Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 1984 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 1984'] in the year 1989 for running a fair price shop to sell and distribute various commodities such as kerosene oil, food grains, sugar, cooking oil and cloth at the price fixed by the government. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, all retail shopkeepers were required to apply for grant of fresh license under the Order, 1984 with respect to running fair price shop. The petitioner applied for the same and after due enquiry, he was granted a fresh license having license No. 2 of 2008 dtd. 14/6/2008. In the month of November, 2012, the villagers of Village-Jageshwar came to know that a recommendation was made to bifurcate some of the BPL card holders related to PDS shop of Village-Jageshwar and to shift them to another PDS shop of Panchayat/Village-Kunda which was about 4 to 6 Kilometers away from the said village. The residents of the said village protested against the said decision by filing representation before the respondent No.4 on 21.11.2012 requesting him that they should be given kerosene oil, food grains and other commodities from the PDS shop of Village-Jageshwar instead of PDS shop of Village-Kunda. However, no heed was paid on the said request of the villagers and the respondent No.3 vide order as contained in Memo No. 565 dtd. 26.11.2012, issued direction to shift the place of the PDS shop of Khusboo Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Kunda having license No. 36/2012 to Village-Jageshwar for distributing kerosene oil, food grains and other commodities. After shifting the place of the said PDS shop, some of the BPL card holders concerned with the petitioner's PDS shop of Village-Jageshwar, were transferred to the said newly shifted PDS shop. Thereafter, the petitioner received a copy of the order as contained in memo No. 566 dtd. 27.11.2012 issued by the respondent No.3 suspending license No. 2 of 2008 standing in the name of the petitioner on certain allegations and he was also served with a show cause notice. The petitioner filed his reply to the said show cause notice on 17.12.2012 before the respondent No.3 denying the allegations levelled against him and stating inter alia that he had submitted Demand Draft No. 971817 dtd. 15.10.2012 of Rs.2,251/- for lifting rice for the month of November, 2012, but the same was not supplied to him. However, after lapse of about ten months, the license of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent No.3 vide impugned order as contained in memo No. 485 dtd. 27.08.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6265 of 2013 before this Court against the order dtd. 27.08.2013 which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dtd. 05.05.2014 giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum. The petitioner accordingly preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 being Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2014 which was dismissed by the said respondent vide impugned order 16.05.2016. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order as contained in memo No. 485 dtd. 27.08.2013 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as a copy of letter No. 07 dtd. 09.01.2013 issued by the respondent No.4 has never been communicated to the petitioner whereas, the same has been heavily relied upon by the respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order cancelling the P.D.S license of the petitioner. The petitioner has denied the allegation that the letter as contained in memo No. 329 dtd. 05.07.2013 was issued to him, but he refused to receive the same. The petitioner had been running the fair price shop since 1989 and as such there was no reason for non-lifting of the food grains and kerosene oil, as directed by the respondent No.4 on telephone. Moreover, the petitioner had deposited the demand draft dtd. 15.10.2012 for lifting rice for the month of November, 2012, but the same was not supplied to him by the respondents. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned orders that he did not use to open the shop on time and used to misbehave with the consumers as well as that he did not receive the notice, are totally false. The petitioner was running the fair price shop since 1989 without any complaint from any consumer or villager or officer. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not violated the terms and conditions of the Order, 2001 and as such his P.D.S license could not have been cancelled.