LAWS(JHAR)-2012-10-30

OM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On October 08, 2012
OM PRAKASH GUPTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15th June 2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2007 by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan Division), Chaibasa whereby his revision under clause-29 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 against the order dated 30th October 2002 passed by the Special Officer (Rationing), Jamshedpur, has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 30th October 2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the Special Officer (Rationing), Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 2) whereby the petitioner's trade licence no. 98/1986 and agreement entered with the State pursuant thereto, has also been cancelled.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record including the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. So far as the first contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner had pre-judged the issue while directing the Special Officer (Rationing) to initiate proceeding against the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the preliminary inquiry was conducted on complaints made by the card holders by a team consisting of eight officers of the district administration constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, who upon inquiry and verification of 303 card holders, gave a report. The Deputy Commissioner simply forwarded the report to the Special Officer (Rationing) asking him to take steps in accordance with law in the matter. The show-cause notice vide annexure-2 thereafter was issued wherein the petitioner's licence was placed under suspension which is permissible under Clause-12 of the Unification Order, 1984. Thereafter, a proceeding for cancellation of lience was initiated,pursuant to which show-cause notice containing the allegations in respect of violation of the Unification Order, 1984 on the part of the petitioner in supplying kerosene oil to such card holders for considerable length of time was issued. From perusal of the show-cause notice, it appears that the contents of the inquiry report which were relevant for the petitioner to know the charges, have been incorporated in the show-cause itself while asking him to furnish the reply. It is not a case when the petitioner was unaware of the charges for which the proceedings for cancellation of licence was initiated. It further appears that the petitioner furnished the show-cause reply in a perfunctory manner. Moreover, he has himself in so many words made admission that he used to supply kerosene oil to the persons who did not produce the ration card in question. The impugned order thereafter has been passed by the Special Officer (Rationing) taking into account the explanation offered by the petitioner vide annexure-5. The original order does not appear to suffer from any infirmity in which specific case of complaint has been taken into account. The Revisional Authority reconsidered the petitioner's revision on remand by this court and upon discussing the material before him as also the admission of the petitioner, did not find any infirmity with the impugned order passed by the original authority. This court does not sit in appeal while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is apparent that on complaints, an inquiry was held, the gist of the inquiry along with the specific names of some of the complainants were furnished in the show-cause notice to the petitioner who failed to furnish the satisfactory reply. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. The contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has prejudged the issue, is not worth accepting because he has simply forwarded the inquiry report and he himself has not taken any decision and it is the licencing authority who after considering the show-cause furnished by the petitioner, has taken the decision to cancel the licence and the petitioner's allegation that it has been done on the dictates of the Deputy Commissioner, is not correct.