ANUPMA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 13.2.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner -cum - Licensing Authority and the appellate order dated 28.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner -cum -appellate authority whereby the license of the petitioner of Kerosene Oil has been cancelled in exercise of powers conferred by Bihar Trade Articles (Licence and Unification) Order, 1984.

(2.) PETITIONER was carrying on business in the premises taken on lease and the license under the Unification order being license No. 13/90 granted by the licensing authority. Petitioner 'scase is that since the business was carried out in lease premises, the petitioner applied for permission for change of place of business to Kasidih within Khata No. 20 on the lands belonging to his son. On the basis of the said application the Chief Controller of Explosives issued a letter asking the petitioner to furnish various details. The petitioner also filed an application requesting for no objection certificate and under the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi no objection certificate was issued on 25.11.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the required details before the Chief Controller of Explosives by way of a letter dated 23.12.1999. However, in the mean time the Sub - Divisional Officer, Ranchi suddenly inspected the premises of the petitioner on 13.7.2000 and a report was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranch alleging various irregularities. A seizure list was also prepared. Thereafter the licence of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 29.7.2000 and the petitioner was served with a memo dated 7.8.2000 issued by the Deputy Commissioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence of the petitioner be not cancelled for violating the terms and conditions of the licence. The petitioner filed his show cause denying each and every allegation and stating that the allegations are baseless and unfounded.

(3.) THE respondents in their counter -affidavit have stated that the licensing authority never approved change of place of business of the petitioner since the petitioner never applied for change of place of business and the trade licence issued in his name.