HARIHAR KEWAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Abhijit Kumar, the learned JC to SC-VI appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 09.06.2009 which has been passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla-respondent No.3 whereby the license No.01/90 of the petitioner under the Public Distribution System of the Bihar Essential Commodities Act, 1984 has been cancelled.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying on business of fair price shop under Public Districution System at Village-Shivrajpur, Post-Belagarha, Thana- Ghaghra, within the district of Gumla having license no.01/90 issued under the signature of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla under Bihar Essential Commodities Act (Unification Control Order), 1984. He further submits that there was no complaint from the beneficiaries against the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without properly considering the reply of the petitioner. He further submits that the enquiry report on which the action was taken was also not provided to the petitioner and proper opportunity of hearing was also not provided to the petitioner. He submits that the Government of Jharkhand vide order dated 16.06.2005 directed the authority concerned to constitute a committee in every district of the State of Jharkhand under the chairmanship of the concerned Deputy Commissioner. The Committee shall take decision finally on the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer with respect to issuance of license, suspension, revocation and cancellation under the Public Distribution System on the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding any sort of irregularities being committed in the Fair Price Shop and no final decision shall be taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer in absence of the decision of the Committee. He further submits that the Committee has already been constituted in which three authorities are included in that Committee. He submits that in view of this order, the power of cancellation is with the Committee and here the impugned order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla, which is without jurisdiction.