RAJENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by learned Licensing Authority -cum- Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra, whereby the petitioner's PDS licence has been cancelled. The order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the impugned order of learned Licensing Authority -cum- Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra is vitiated, as the same has been passed, inter alia, on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, who is the appellate authority. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra by memo No. 629 dated 17.7.2011 had directed the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Chatra to initiate a proceeding and cancel the PDS licence of the petitioner along with others on the basis of the allegation that he had found certain irregularity in the shops. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it was alleged that the petitioner's shop was closed and his absence indicates that he is involved in black-marketing.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegation of the Deputy Commissioner is vague and based on conjectures and surmises. The petitioner had closed his shop by giving prior information to the Mukhiya of the village under the compelling circumstance The petitioner had also explained the reason before the licensing authority. However, since the licensing authority was directed by the Deputy Commissioner, he passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's licence without any application of his mind. He has further submitted that there is blatant violation of the provision of Clause-11 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Trade Article (Unification of Licence) Order, 1984 as well as the principle of natural justice and the order is liable to be quashed by this Court.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contesting the writ application. It has been, inter alia, stated that the petitioner's shop was found closed on the day when it was ought to have been opened. That goes to show the intention of black-marketing of the food grains by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, in surprise visit, found the petitioner's shop closed and reported the matter to the Licensing Authority. On the basis of the said report, the proceeding was initiated by the Licensing Authority. Notice was issued to the petitioner and opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain/reply to the show cause. The order has been passed considering the petitioner's reply. There is no violation of any provision of law or principle of natural justice, as alleged by the petitioner.