PRAKASH CHANDRA SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No. 3, Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda contained in memo no. 948 dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure-1/A) as also order of the appellate authority dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda-Respondent No. 2 in Misc. Appeal No. 32/06-07 by which license of his fair price shop was cancelled.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was a fair price shop dealer licensee having License No. 30/84, since 1972 for Village-Dhondri, Panchayat Nokhil under District and Block-Godda. It is stated that there was no complaint against him till he received order dated 11.12.2006 whereby his license was suspended on the basis of show cause vide letter no. 884 dated 29.11.2006 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda (Annexure-2). It is contended by the petitioner that the entire allegations made in the show cause are perfunctory and has not been substantiated by any proof in spite of the fact that the petitioner has furnished cogent reply to each of the charges vide Annexure-3 dated 14.12.2006 impugned order of cancellation has been issued. It is further contended by the petitioner that there are no established finding of being indulged in black marketing or any violation of the terms and conditions of the license under the Trade Licensing Control Order. However, it is submitted that the S.D.O. being the licensing authority has passed a cryptic order who shrugged aside all his replies to unsubstantiated allegations and proceeded to cancel the license itself by a non-speaking order. It is further submitted that the order of appellate authority has also been passed in a similar manner without taking into account that none of the irregularities as alleged against the petitioner was found to be established. It is further submitted by referring to the Inquiry Report (Annexures-4 and 4/A) that the Inquiry Report do not match with the allegations alleged in the show cause issued vide Annexure-2 against the petitioner, as such it is submitted that the impugned orders are wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted on the basis of the affidavit on their behalf that the allegations which were found on inspection by the Supply Inspector, Godda on 30.6.2006 as also the subsequent report addressed by the Block Supply Officer, reflected serious charges of not following with the terms and conditions of the license by the petitioner. These allegations have been point-wise enumerated in the show cause dated 29.11.2006 given to the petitioner in order to enable him to furnish his reply. It is further submitted that there are at least 9 serious charges against the petitioner against which he has not been able to furnish any cogent reply. Counsel for the respondent further submitted by relying upon the order dated 15.12.2006, which is also annexed as Annexure-C series to the counter affidavit, in respect of the proceedings conducted against the petitioner that against each of the charges made in the show cause the licensing/competent authority has dealt with the submissions of the petitioner and found his submissions to be wholly unsatisfactory. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed and there is no infirmity in the said order as in a case of fair price licensed shop, licensee is required to maintain proper records for distribution of essential commodities being disbursed amongst beneficiaries such as the B.P.L. Card-holders. It is further submitted that the petitioner has only made vague excuses while not furnishing any distribution register, which would establish the allegations of having not distributed essential commodities to the card-holders specially in respect of allegation nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 and also in relation to charge no. 9. It is submitted that in these circumstances, even the appellate authority has not found the defence of the petitioner credible and confirmed the original order without interfering with the same. Counsel for the respondent also submits that the respondents have followed the entire procedure required in respect of such proceedings by following the principle of natural justice giving the petitioner-licensee adequate opportunity to show cause after enumerating specific charges found to be levelled against the petitioner on the basis of inspection as also the complaints and there is no infirmity in the decision making process.