Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1031 (PAT)

Baleshwar Mehta v. State Of Bihar

2000-08-22

R.M.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.6.1998 of the appellate authority, namely, the Collector, Saharsa rejecting his appeal and affirming the order of cancellation of licence passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saharsa and also by the order dated 15.6.1999 of the revisional authority declining to interfere with the order of the appellate authority and rejecting the revision, contained in Annexures 1 and 2 respectively. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner is a dealer of Public Distribution System Shop under Maheshpur Gram Panchayat, Ward No. 8 and holds Licence No. 51/85 for the said purpose issued under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. According to the case of the petitioner, he was authorized to distribute articles to the consumes of Ward No. 2. However, later he was allowed to shift his shop to Ward No. 3 and thereafter, has been distributing the articles to the consumers of Ward No. 3. 3. It is stated that some of the consumers of Ward No. 2 complained against, the petitioner as he refused to give articles to them after shifting the shop to Ward No. 3. An inquiry was made in which it is claimed that no consumer of Ward No. 3 made any complaint against the petitioner. Later,- the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice as to why his licence should not be cancelled and in response to it, he filed his show-cause explaining all the circumstances. It is claimed that after filing of the show cause he was allotted articles for distribution but all of a sudden his licence was cancelled by the SDO, Saharsa, vide Memo No. 487-2 dated 4.7.1997, against which he preferred appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.6.1998 (Annexure 1). The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed Supply Revision Case No. 8/98-99 before the Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa, who also dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 15.6.1999, contained in Annexure 2, with which the petitioner is aggrieved and, has filed the present writ petition for its quashing. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority has not at all considered the points raised by the petitioner before them. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority has not at all considered the points raised by the petitioner before them. It is submitted that in his show-cause he was categorically stated that after shifting his shop from ward No. 2 to Ward No. 3, he was not authorized to supply the articles to the consumers of Ward No. 2 and no witness was examined from Ward No. 3 to prove the charge, According to him, the petitioner has riot violated the provisions of law and the conditions of licence as is also evident from the fact that the consumers of Ward No. 3 along with the members of Nigrani Samiti filed petition before the SDO, Saharsa stating therein that the petitioner has been regularly distributing the articles, buts the same has not at all been considered by either of the said two authorities and the order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of stating his case. 5. This Court does not find any substance in the said submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed the show-cause notice issued to him. From the order of the appellate authority, it appears that the cancellation of licence was for violation of the conditions of the licence and not on the ground that the petitioner refused to supply the articles to the consumers of Ward No. 2. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the State that in fact, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority has not considered the necessity of going into the said plea of the petitioner as that was not the ground for cancellation of his licence. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the State. The appellate authority in his order (Annexure 1) has accepted that there is no report of the Court below on the show cause filed by him, but has found that the cancellation of licence has been passed on the ground of violation of the conditions of licence which is in accordance with the rules and is also substantiated. 8. The appellate authority in his order (Annexure 1) has accepted that there is no report of the Court below on the show cause filed by him, but has found that the cancellation of licence has been passed on the ground of violation of the conditions of licence which is in accordance with the rules and is also substantiated. 8. From the order of the revisional authoritys this Court finds that the reason for cancellation of licence by the Sub-divisional Officer is that no entry was made either in the stock register or in the distribution register for months nor the distribution register contained the entry as regards the quantity of distribution of articles. The consumers were not supplied with the cash-memo of the distributed articles. It appears that in course of inquiry by the Sub-divisional Officer, he was told that the petitioner (dealer) was not in the house but after getting the door opened, it was found that the petitioner was hiding in the same house. The Commissioner has also considered in details about the irregularities noticed by the Sub-divisional Officer. He has also considered the fact that in the show-causes the petitioner has not given clear answer with respect to the irregularities in entries made in various registers. He simply said that he had gone to Purnea for the treatment of his wife and due to her illness, he was mentally upset which led to mistake in making entries. Thus, this Court finds no substance in the main plea taken on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the validity of the impugned orders. 9. This Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, thus, summarily dismissed.