SHISHIR MARANDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by the writ petitioner-Appellant is directed against the judgment/order dtd. 25/2/2021 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2807 of 2020 whereby the prayer for quashing the order of suspension of the PDS Licence of the petitioner dtd. 17/11/2009 and further for revoking the order of suspension and allowing the petitioner to operate the PDS Shop, was dismissed.

(2.) The claim of the writ petitioner is that he was granted PDS Licence on 3/3/1989 being Licence No. 24/89 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka, who was then Licensing Authority and thereafter, petitioner's PDS shop started functioning from 1989 till October, 2009 without any complaint by any person and to the satisfaction of concerned respondent. However, on 1/11/2009 the Block Development Officer lodged an FIR under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the allegation that he got information on telephone that some of the villagers caught a person on a bicycle with 6 jericans containing 90 ltrs of kerosene oil.

(3.) It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid allegations action was taken by the Licencing authority and vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed in the writ proceeding by the State vide office order no 164/09 as contained in memo no. 1472 dtd. 17/11/2009, the PDS Licence of the writ petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and the PDS Shop was given to some other Licencee so that people of the locality may not suffer. Subsequent thereto, a show-cause notice was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka vide memo no. 01 dtd. 2/1/2020 which appears to have been signed on 30/12/2009 but issued on 2/1/2010. Vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the writ petitioner-appellant was directed to show cause within three days as to why for the aforesaid illegality and misconduct and wrong done by him in violation of the terms and conditions of the Licence, his PDS Licence should not be cancelled. The writ petitioner has submitted his show cause. However, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State informs us that no final order has been passed in the aforesaid proceeding even after lapse of 11 years.