Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 314 (ORI)

Prem Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa

2006-04-21

L.MOHAPATRA

body2006
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. : The petitioner in this writ application challenges the legality of the order passed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 canceling his licence. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Sub-wholesaler for kerosene in Loisingha Block and was continu¬ing as such since 1991. His licence was being renewed from year to year and the same was cancelled in the impugned order. The further case of the petitioner is that on 22.10.2003, the Tahsil¬dar, Bolangir accompanied by the Sub-Collector and Civil Supplies staff inspected the business premises of the petitioner and found 5,300 liters of kerosene kept in stock tallied with the book balance. However, a report was submitted stating that the display board was not in order and ‘J’ licence was not produced although the stock and price of kerosene board was there in the business premises on the front side of the wall. After receipt of the report, the Collector, Bolangir in its letter dated 3.11.2003 directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the Sub-wholesale licence shall not be cancelled and other legal proceedings shall not be initiated against him on the following grounds :- (i) The stock and price board was not displayed though the same is mandatory as per condition No.8 of the licence issued under the provisions of PDS Control Order, 2002. (ii) As per sale account during September, 2003 there has been deviation of the allotment order passed by the B.D.O., Loisingha and four retailers were supplied with kerosene in excess with utter disregard to the allotment order passed by the B.D.O., Loisingha. (iii) For such irregularities, the petitioner had been pun¬ished by way of fine earlier on two occasions. (iv) The petitioner failed to produce the ‘J’ licence (Explosive license) obtained from the competent authority at the time of inspection. 3. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted his reply in Annexure-4. In Annexure-5, the order of cancellation was passed by the Collector and challenging the same, an appeal was preferred before the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has also dismissed the appeal in Annexure-6 giving rise to this writ application. 4. 3. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted his reply in Annexure-4. In Annexure-5, the order of cancellation was passed by the Collector and challenging the same, an appeal was preferred before the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has also dismissed the appeal in Annexure-6 giving rise to this writ application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the reply submitted by the petitioner stated that so far as display board is concerned, the plea of the petitioner that the entries in the display board were washed away in rain was not accepted by the opposite parties and non-acceptance of the same is based on no reason. He also contended that the four retailers who had been supplied with excess stock of kerosene had in fact not lifted their stock for the previous months and they lifted their stocks for two months at a time. Thus, no excess stock has been issued in violation of the allotment order dated 12.5.2003 passed by the B.D.O., Loisingha. The learned counsel also submitted that for the past conduct of the petitioner, he had been imposed with fine and lastly it was submitted that the ‘J’ licence was available in the office of the A.D.M. and the petitioner could not produce the same at the time of inspection as he had not obtained the same from the office of the A.D.M. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 stating therein that the petitioner violated the conditions of the licence as well the provisions of Clause 10 of the PDS Control Order, 2002. Initially the licence of the peti¬tioner was suspended on 21.11.2003 and challenging the same, the petitioner filed writ application before this Court in W.P.(C) No.12719 of 2003. This Court disposed of the writ application on 24.2.2004 directing the opposite party No.2 to consider the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner providing him an opportu¬nity of hearing and dispose of the appeal within three weeks. Pursuant to the said direction, an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the petitioner was personally heard on 15.3.2004 and the impugned order was passed. Pursuant to the said direction, an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the petitioner was personally heard on 15.3.2004 and the impugned order was passed. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that looking into the above conduct of the petitioner as well as the reply submitted by him in relation to the other allegations, the Collector was not satisfied with the explanation and accordingly accepted the charges and cancelled the licence. Even appeal preferred by the petitioner before opposite party No.1 was dismissed and in view of the above this Court may not interfere with the order of cancellation. 6. As is evident from the notice to show cause, four grounds had been taken by the competent authority for cancella¬tion of the licence. The first ground relates to non-maintenance of the display board. In reply to the said allegation, the peti¬tioner had submitted that the stock position and price fixed by the Government is always written with chalk every day and on the date of inspection also the same had been indicated. However, due to rain the writings were washed away and he had given an undertaking to prepare a new board instead of old one and the new board is being now displayed on the outside front wall of the Depot. The Collector in this regard only observed that the peti¬tioner having admitted that the entries in the display board were washed away, undisputedly on the date of inspection there was no entry in the display board and accordingly accepted the report in that regard. The explanation submitted by the petitioner that the entries made in the display board were washed away had not been enquired into and no finding was arrived at by the Collector in this regard. The above finding of the Collector that the peti¬tioner admitted the allegation is not correct. So far as second grounds is concerned, appears that the petitioner has admitted to have supplied kerosene to four retail¬ers in excess of what had been allotted by the B.D.O., Loisingha. The explanation given by him is that for the previous two months the said four retailers had not lifted their stocks and they have lifted their stocks for both the months together. Such plea taken by the petitioner is unacceptable. The explanation given by him is that for the previous two months the said four retailers had not lifted their stocks and they have lifted their stocks for both the months together. Such plea taken by the petitioner is unacceptable. If the said four retailers had not lifted the kerosene for the previous two months, then it should have been intimated to the authority Moreover, the said four retailers have stated that they have not received the addi¬tional stock of kerosene said to have been supplied to them for the previous months. Though the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to meet the statements made by the four retailers, on the admission of the petitioner himself, it appears that for sup¬plying the kerosene to the said four retailers for the previous month no permission had been taken nor any intimation was given to the competent authority. So far as first ground is concerned, it appears that the same has not correctly decided by the Collector. So far as the second ground is concerned, it appears to be justified. So far as third ground is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner on earlier two occasions had been found guilty of irregularities and fine had been imposed on him. So far as fourth ground is concerned, there is also no dispute that the petitioner had not produced the ‘J’ licence at the time of inspection. Considering the past conduct of the petitioner and the doubtful conduct in relation to the ground No.2, I am of the view that even though the first ground has not been correctly decided, cancellation of the licence on the other three grounds is justified. The appellate authority also agreed with the findings of the Collector in this regard and I am, therefore of the view that there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of cancellation. 8. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.