SANT KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 3.2.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan in Misc. Petition No. 71/2005 -06, whereby the learned Deputy Commissioner has refused to restore the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction on the respondents to restore the licence of Fair Price Shop as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons. The petitioners are Fair Shop Dealers and for that they were granted valid licence on 28.6.2000. General notices to show -cause were issued to the petitioners along with others. The petitioners had filed their reply. Learned Sub -Divisional Officer -cum -Licensing Authority cancelled the licence of each of the petitioners by order dated 19.10.2000. Similar orders cancelling the licences were passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer -cum -Licensing authority. One Bhagirath Panda and others filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan for setting aside the order of the Licensing Authority and for restoring licenses for running Fair Price Shop. The said petition was heard and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 13.4.2005 allowed their prayed and directed the Sub -Divisional Offlcer -cum -Licensing Authority to restore the respective licenses of 8 of the petitioners. Since the petitioner's licence was also cancelled on the same allegation particularly for pendency of criminal case as was in the case of others, they also filed application before the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan praying for restoration of their licence as has been done in the cases of similarly situated persons. Their application was registered as Misc. Petition No. 71/2005 -06. Before the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners had referred to and cited the said instances in which the said order was passed. Surprisingly, the Deputy Commissioner refused to allow the petitioner's prayer observing that because similar orders have been passed in the cases of similarly situated persons, same order cannot be passed in the instant case. The petitioner being aggrieved by that order, has filed this writ petition.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the writ petition. It has been stated, inter alia, that simply because licenses of some of the dealers were restored, petitioners cannot claim restoration of their licenses.

(3.) LEARNED J.C. to S.C.III, on the other hand, submitted that the impugned order has been passed after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances and there is no infirmity and illegality in the order. The petitioners do not deserve restoration of licenses as irregularities were found in their shops and the criminal case(s) is/are pending against the petitioners. Learned Counsel, however, could not contradict the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that on the similar facts and in the cases of similarly situated persons, the Deputy Commissioner has directed to restore the licenses.