Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 42 (JHR)

PUTUL DEVI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2006-01-17

R.K.MERATHIA

body2006
Judgment : ( 1 ) HEARD the parties. ( 2 ) PETITIONER claiming to be a fair price shop holder and also a retail licensee under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1994 (the Act for short), prays for quashing the order dated 16-6-2005 (Annexure-2), issued by the Food, Supply and commerce Department, Government of jharkhand, Ranchi. ( 3 ) FROM the said order, it appears that while taking steps for effective working of the Public Distribution System in the State, the department found that so far as the Fair price Shops are concerned, several illegalities and irregularities were being committed by the concerned Government officers in the matter of grant, renewal, revocation of suspension and cancellation of licenses and therefore, a committee has been constituted to review all such cases. The Committee will also consider the recommendations for new licenses and forward the same to the department for approval. The Committee will also deal with the recommendations received on the complaints against the licensees of fair price shops in the matters of suspensions of license or its revocation. ( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that only the Licensing Authorities, prescribed by the Act, are empowered to deal with all the matters relating to the licenses and the aggrieved person can file appeal/ revision against the orders of the Licensing authority before the superior authority it is argued that if the Licensing Authorities are not acting properly, action can be taken against them and also against the beneficiaries of the orders passed by them. It is further submitted that such powers of the licensing Authority cannot be usurped by a committee headed by the Deputy Commig-sioner, who is the appellate authority against the orders passed by the licensing authority of the retail dealers. Thus it is submitted that without amending the law, the powers of the licensing authority cannot be vested in the Committee or the department. ( 5 ) THE cases relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. Thus it is submitted that without amending the law, the powers of the licensing authority cannot be vested in the Committee or the department. ( 5 ) THE cases relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. In the Full Bench decision of Patna High Court in the case of M/s Parwati Bhandar v. The state of Bihar reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 774 (1992 Cri LJ 796), it was held that the collector, who is the Licensing Authority for the wholesale dealer could not delegate his power to Special Officer, Rationing, as he has not been so appointed by the State Government. In that situation, the license granted by the Special Officer, Rationing and the notice issued by him suspending the wholesale license, both were held to be illegal. In the case of Baiju Prasad v. The State of Bihar, reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 321 , the sub-divisional Officer cancelled the license on the orders of the appellate authority, which was held, to be bad. Similarly in the case of Ramautar Sinha v. State of Bihar, reported in 2000 (4) PLJR 185 , the order issued for cancellation of license by the Appellate authority directly, was held to be bad. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, the impugned order has been issued in public interest. District level Committees, headed by the Deputy commissioner, have been constituted for achieving the object of distribution of the essential commodities at fair prices by the fair price shop dealer. The Deputy Commissioner is the Licensing Authority for the wholesale dealers. The licensing authorities for the retail dealers and other officers of the supply departments are members of the committee. So far as a Fair Price Shop is concerned it stands on different footing. It is run on the basis of an agreement/ grant by the Government. Since such Fair Shop dealer also deals in essential commodities, a license is required, under the Act. The provisions of the Act cannot be interpreted to mean that the concerned Government Department is debarred from constituting such committee for achieving the object sought to be achieved under Public Distribution System. Such decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide or unconstitutional. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, no costs. Petition dismissed. Such decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide or unconstitutional. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, no costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .