MADHU SUDAN JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order as contained in the letters dated 30.12.2005 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur, whereby he has cancelled the Fair Price Shop licences on the basis of recommendation made by the State Level Committee.

(2.) IN W.P. (C) No. 476 of 2006, the petitioner was running a fair price shop under Public Distribution System (PDS) since 1982. On 5.8.2005, a first information report was lodged against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on the basis of report of the Assistant District Supply Officer, Madhupur alleging that the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur got secret information regarding petitioner's shop which was involved in black -marketing of the foodgrains supplied to him for distribution. The shop of the petitioner was raided and 12.08 quintals of wheat was seized. It is contended by the petitioner that a show cause notice was issued by the District Supply Officer asking him to show cause. The petitioner submitted a detailed show cause, but without initiating any cancellation proceeding and without giving opportunity of hearing, the District Level Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner decided to cancel the licence and the said decision was communicated by the Sub Divisional Officer.

(3.) MR . S.L. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the action of the respondents in cancelling the licences on the basis of the decision taken in a meeting under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar is absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that neither the District Supply Officer had jurisdiction to issue show clause notice nor the Deputy Commissioner, being the appellate authority and not the licensing authority, can take a decision by heading a committee. Learned Counsel submitted that procedures adopted by the respondents in cancelling the licences are wholly arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.