DEO KUMAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra -court appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.7.2013 passed in W.P.C. No. 2288 of 2013 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and declining to pass the order restoring the licence of PDS Shop of the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant is a Fair Price Shop Keeper having Licence No.4/2000. His Fair Price Shop was situated at village Dhebo Village Panchayat, District -Hazaribagh now Chatra. On 23.6.2010, vide memo no.1158, 5th respondent -Sub -Divisional Officer, Chatra, issued a show cause notice to the appellant inter alia stated that the appellant's shop was closed on Wednesday and less quantity as fixed by the Govt. has been distributed. On 25.6.2010, again a show cause notice was issued by the 5th respondent Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, stating that on 17.6.2010, the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, himself visited the shop and received some complaints. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant submitted his reply denying the allegations. Vide order dated 20.7.2010, by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, the licence of the PDS Shop of the appellant was cancelled. As against the order of cancellation of licence of the PDS Shop of the appellant dated 20.7.2010, the appellant filed appeal before the 4th respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Chatra and the same was dismissed on 7.3.2012. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal, the appellant filed revision before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, in Revision Case No.14 of 2012 but the same was dismissed on 16.5.2012.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner -appellant was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard at any point of time. It is submitted that explanation submitted by the petitioner -appellant that he met with an accident and had gone for treatment and that is why the shop remained closed, was not also accepted and believed by the authorities concerned at the time of taking decision in the case. It is further submitted that petitioner -appellant has been victimized at the behest of some rival groups. According to the petitioner -appellant some of the villagers have came forward and withdrawn the complaint. However, the authorities concerned have not considered their submissions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant, the appellant belong to scheduled caste community and coming from lower strata of society could not timely and properly submitted explanation for want of proper legal assistance. Thus, according to the appellant, he was denied proper opportunity of being heard and thereby the action of the respondents is violative of the principle of natural justice and fair play, and therefore, alone on this ground, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and the mater is required to be remitted back to the concerned authority for de novo consideration.