SURESH KUMAR SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 276 dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure-1) by which the licence of his Public Distribution System shop (in short PDS) was suspended and also vide Memo No. 13.6.2006 (Annexure-4) whereby the licence of the fair price shop no. 44/JRA/1985 was cancelled on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Jharia Notified Area.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was given a license of Public Distribution System shop under Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, being license no. 44/JRA/1985 for carrying on the retail sale of edible oil, clothes, sugar, foodgrains, kerosene oil and vanaspati oil situated at Ward No. 12 at West Koiribandh, Jharia. It is submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 4, Marketing Officer, Jharia, Dhanbad, on the complaint of 32 card-holders that the alleged PDS shop of the petitioner is lying closed for last two years, inspected the ration shop and after enquiry, had submitted his report on 30.6.2006 before the respondent no. 3, Additional Collector (Supply), Dhanbad. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.3.2003, the licence of PDS shop was suspended by order of the Additional Collector (Supply), Dhanbad and the petitioner was asked to submit his show cause within 15 days. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner in his show cause vide Annexure-2, showed his bona fide and stated that he had not violated any terms and conditions of the licence and he had also deposited the stock and sale registers and cash memo etc. for the year 2004-05 as required by the respondent no. 3. However, respondents have chosen to cancel the PDS license itself by the impugned order dated 13.6.2006 issued by the respondent no. 3. It is contention of the petitioner that the impugned order of cancellation has been passed by respondent no. 3 without giving a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order is itself a non-speaking and mechanical order without application of mind. He further submits that if allegation at all is assumed to be true, it is related to only kerosene and wheat but entire PDS license of the shop has been cancelled on the alleged allegation.

(3.) The respondent-State has appeared and filed their counter affidavit. They have relied upon the report of Marketing Officer, respondent no. 4 and submitted that the complaints were made against the petitioner's shop by certain card-holders that by putting forged L.T.I. and signature on the sale register/cash memo, the petitioner/licensee has shown that he has distributed essential commodities amongst the card-holders. The respondent further states that after the report of Marketing Officer, Jharia Notified Area, the Additional District Magistrate (Supply) also conducted a detailed enquiry in respect of the said shop. After such exercise, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why his license be not cancelled and in the meantime license was put under suspension with immediate effect. It is further submitted that after receipt of the petitioner's show cause, the impugned order has been passed, which is legal and proper in the eyes of law. For that, opportunity has been given to the petitioner to show cause by following the principle of natural justice.