DULAL BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE writ petitioner has come before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 28th September, 20004, passed in Appeal by Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, in R.M.A. Case No. 205/2001 02, whereby cancellation of his P.D.S. License vide order dated 13th September, 1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara, has been upheld. According to the petitioner, he was the dealer of a license of Fair Price Shop bearing License No. 1 of 1991 in village Bagdehri under District Jamtara. According to him, on instruction of the authorities he was directed to distribute wheat among the villagers of Khairbani, who were affected by fire. On allegations made by certain persons relating to supply of rotten wheat his license was suspended by the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara vide Memo No. 274 dated 21st April, 1997. According to the petitioner, his license was cancelled without any notice to him, although he did not violate any terms of the Bihar Trade Articles Licenses Unification Order, 1984 . The petitioner, in his defence, has submitted that wheat was lifted from F.C.I. Godown, Jasidih, and was distributed among the villagers in presence of Block Development Officer, Kundahit on 17th April, 1997. However, on a Public Petition the petitioner was asked to distribute rice instead of wheat as it was found to be rotten. However, the rotten wheat was supplied from the F.C.I. Godown itself and the petitioner had no option but to lift the same.

(3.) THE respondents after repeated indulgence have filed their counter affidavit in November, 2012, although the matter relates to the year 2006. The respondents through their counter affidavit and the order of cancellation passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara Annexure A tried to justify the issuance of the impugned order by making submissions that the petitioner had sold the wheat lifted from the F.C.I. Godown through black marketing and instead was distributing rotten wheat among the beneficiaries of the Public Distribution System. The show cause notices were sought to be served upon the petitioner, which he refused to accept before passing the impugned order.