DILIP KUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 229 dated 15.05.2004 passed by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka (Respondent No.4), whereby the petitioner's license was suspended and thereafter cancelled by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka (Respondent no.4) and further for quashing the appellate order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in R.M.R Case No. 4/200506, whereby the petitioner's revision against the original order dated 15.5.2004, has been dismissed and the order of the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka, has been confirmed.

(3.) IN view of the above, the shows notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.2.2004 by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka, asking him to show cause, but the petitioner failed to reply the show cause and the order was passed after a considerable time on 15.5.2004 only. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2005, wherein the petitioner was granted enough opportunity to defend himself but the charges against the petitioner which were also contained in the show cause notice issued to him, were not adequately replied by him and Deputy Commissioner accordingly confirmed the order passed by the Original Authority. The petitioner being a licensee of the Public Distribution System is obliged also as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for regular supply of food grains to be made to the indigent persons but has violated the terms of the license and also committed several irregularities which have been taken note in the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner itself. It is submitted that since Deputy Commissioner has given adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, before him in the revision petition preferred by the petitioner after a considerable lapse of time the plea of violation of principal of natural justice is no longer tenable. It is further stated that even otherwise since the Deputy Commissioner is the Appellate Authority, who has taken into account all the submissions of the petitioner any irregularities in passing the original order has been cured by the Appellate Authority.