Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 730 (PAT)

Shibantu Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-22

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.12.1999 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioners appointment as dealer under the Public Distribution System has been cancelled. 2. Petitioner holds licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order. He was also appointed as a dealer under the Public Distribution System, for short PDS. By order dated 14th of December, 1989, the Sub-divisional Officer directed for attachment of the consumers of the petitioners shop to any other shop on the allegation that during the course of inquiry it was found that the petitioner did not disburse foodgrains to many of the consumers and the foodgrains supplied was less in Weight and further petitioner charged higher price from the consumers. It was also alleged that the petitioner had obtained the shop under the PDS by concealing his age. On these allegations, the petitioners appointment as dealer under the PDS was suspended and he was asked to show cause as to why the same be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply and on consideration of the same, the Sub-divisional Officer cancelled the petitioners appointment as dealer under the PDS. 3. Mr. Labh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioners licence under the Unification Order has been cancelled which is in violation of the provisions of the Unification Order. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Akhtar Ali V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1989 Patna 323. 4. The very assumption of Mr. Labh that the petitioners licence under the Unification Order has been cancelled, is misconceived and the decision relied on instead of supporting his case goes against him. 5. It is relevant here to state that before a dealer is appointed under the PDS, he is required to obtain a licence under the Unification Order and only thereafter, such person is entitled to be considered for appointment as dealer under PDS and for that, a licence number is given. Accordingly, the petitioner was given a licence number as dealer under the PDS. Perhaps because of this the dealer and the functionary of the State seem to be under confusion. Accordingly, the petitioner was given a licence number as dealer under the PDS. Perhaps because of this the dealer and the functionary of the State seem to be under confusion. This confusion, it is unfortunate still persists, notwithstanding a judgment of this Court in the case of Akhtar Ali, (supra) rendered one and half decade ago. In the said case, it has observed as follows : "5. Unfortunately neither the dealer nor the respondents seem to be clear of the legal position. A person in order to deal in food-stuffs must obtain a licence under the Unification Order but he has no right to be appointed under the public distribution system as fair price shop-keeper. Apart from being a licensee he has to act according to the terms and conditions of the agreement to continue as fair price shop-keeper. It is the discretion of the Government either to appoint a person as fair price shop-keeper or not to do so. If the Government appoints a person as a fair price shopkeeper an agreement has to be executed therefor and as per the agreement the fair price shop-keeper has to act. If there is violation of the agreement or conditions thereof or the conduct of the fair price shop keeper is not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the agreement or his acting and dealing do not inspire confidence, by adopting a fair procedure, the Government may terminate the agreement and refuse to allot any food-stuffs to the dealer in future. But this procedure or action will not affect the licence of the petitioner to carry on trade and business in food-stuffs on his own since for cancellation of the licence issued under the order certain statutory procedures have to be followed. The Unification Order provides modality as well as grounds when such order for cancellation can be made. From a perusal of the instant show cause it seems that the consumers were highly dissatisfied with the conduct of the petitioner which was spot verified in presence of the petitioner where some consumers were also examined. Therefore, the authorities fairly arrived at the conclusions that the petitioner is not fit to further act as a fair price shop-keeper." 6. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as a dealer by the State-Government in exercise of its executive power and such appointment is governed by the law of agency. Therefore, the authorities fairly arrived at the conclusions that the petitioner is not fit to further act as a fair price shop-keeper." 6. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as a dealer by the State-Government in exercise of its executive power and such appointment is governed by the law of agency. Petitioner happens to be the agent of the State and he was found to be indulging in malpractices and therefore, the competent authority after giving him an opportunity to show cause decided to cancel his appointment as a dealer. I do not find any error in the same. 7. Application stands dismissed.