Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1233 (PAT)

Singh Brothers v. State Of Bihar

2004-12-13

AFTAB ALAM

body2004
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Alamdar Husain, S. C. VI representing the State. 2. The petitioner holds a wholesale dealers licence for Kerosene oil. He came to this Court with the grievance that though his licence was subsisting (it was neither suspended nor cancelled by the competent licensing authority), the allotment of monthly quota of K. oil was stopped in his favour by an order passed by the Collector, Saran under his memo No. 427, dated 24-6-2003 (Annexure 3). Mr. Agrawal strongly contended that the direction to stop the allotment of monthly quota of K. oil to the petitioner even though his licence was subsisting was ex facie bad and illegal and called for an interference by this Court. 3. Counter affidavits are filed in this case but unfortunately, care was not taken to state the facts accurately. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector, Saran that was affidavited by the Dist. Supply Officer, it was stated in para 3 that the petitioners licence was under suspension. On further investigation it came to light that the statement was incorrect and as stated by the petitioner no formal order was ever passed by the licensing authority putting the petitioners licence under suspension. Mr. Alamdar Husain tenders apology for incorrect statement in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector which is accepted. 4. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the writ petition and the counter affidavits, the position that emerges may be stated thus. The petitioner obtained a k. oil storage licence bearing No. 28/1964 and wholesale dealership licence in K. oil bearing No. 4/1985. In the storage licence plot No. 1157 was shown as the site for the storage of k. oil. In 1990, a complaint was received before the Collector, Saran that the petitioner was carrying on trade and storage of k. oil in violation of the terms of the licence, mainly with regard to the place of storage, as shown in the licence. 5. On the basis of an enquiry made on the complaint the storage licence of the petitioner was put under suspension. 5. On the basis of an enquiry made on the complaint the storage licence of the petitioner was put under suspension. Later, in the year 1991, the Collector, then in office, restored the petitioners storage licence subject to the condition that he would bring the k. oil tanker to the circle office and make the sales to the retail dealers from the circle office premises itself. It appear that this ad-hoc arrangement was allowed to continue for some years. Apparently, it worked to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities inasmuch as it eliminated any scope or chances of any black-marketing. But no amendment or changes were made in the record or in the licence issued in favour of the petitioner. In other words, an ad hoc arrangement was made by the licensing authority and the district administration that was not strictly in accordance with the rules, though it served a practical purpose. 6. It seems that the same charge in regard to the storage site was revived against the petitioner and perhaps some irregularities in the sale and distribution of k. oil were also detected by the vigilance in course of a raid by the flying squad. That led to the issuance of the impugned order by the Collector on 4-6-2003 by which the allotment of monthly quotas of k. oil to the petitioner was stopped. In passing that order the Collector evidently did not pay much attention to the requirements of the rules. The rules required him either to suspend or cancel the licence first before issuing the order stopping the allotment of monthly quota to the licencee. 7. Be that as it may, shortly thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Collector, Saran under his memo No. 402, dated 11-6-2003 (Annexure 1). In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted his show cause on 12-6-2003 (Annexure 2). It appears that the Collector considered the show cause submitted by the petitioner in which some other plots were offered as site for the storage depot of k. oil. The Collector also got certain enquiries made on the basis of which he was apparently quite satisfied with the new and alternative storage sites offered by the petitioner, but, at this stage too the Collector did not pass any order himself and referred the matter for the approval of the State Government. The Collector also got certain enquiries made on the basis of which he was apparently quite satisfied with the new and alternative storage sites offered by the petitioner, but, at this stage too the Collector did not pass any order himself and referred the matter for the approval of the State Government. This was presumably due to the fact that complaints were received against the petitioner on the basis of the raid made by the flying squad of the Vigilance Department. As normally happens in such matters the Government has not even acknowledged, much less given any reply to the Collectors letter, dated 16-12-2003 and the matter seems to rest at that stage. 8. On a consideration of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the action of the Collector in referring the matter to the State Govt. was not in accordance with law. Under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, it is the Collector who is the licensing authority. The matter must, therefore, be decided by him alone, on his own independent application of mind. For deciding whether or not a licence is liable to cancellation, the Collector, being the licensing authority cannot take instructions, directions or even guidance from any one else, including the State Government. This matter must, therefore, be decided by the Collector himself. 9. In view of the discussions made above, the Collector, Saran is directed to take a final decision on the question whether the petitioners show cause is to be accepted and his licence is to be allowed to continue, on a consideration of all the relevant materials. In order to facilitate an early conclusion of the proceeding, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Collector, Saran, along with a copy of this order, within one week from today. The Collector shall hear the petitioner either on the date of his appearance or shall fix a date for hearing so as to pass a final order in this matter within two weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner before him. The allotment of monthly quota of K. oil to the petitioner shall abide by the order passed by the Collector. 10. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.