Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 613 (PAT)

Kashi Ram Banshidhar v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-26

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.12.04, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger in Begusarai Supply Appeal Case No. 4/2000-01 affirming the order dated 23.11.2000 passed by the Collector, Begusarai cancelling the licence No. 164/1985 issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has violated Clause 6, 8 & 9 of the terms and conditions of the licence granted under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order 1984. Petitioner is the wholesale dealer of Kerosene Oil. 3. On 18.7.2000, the business premises of the petitioner was inspected by an Executive Magistrate. In his inspection report, he mentioned that the display board was not displayed, licence was not displayed and on demand the same was not produced by licensee at the time of inspection and 1877 litres of kerosene oil was found in excess in storage tank whereas on verification of stock book, stock register and Cash Memo, it should have been zero litre. On the basis of report, a Confiscation Proceeding was initiated u/s 6A of Essential Commodities Act and the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. Simultaneously, F.I.R. was also registered u/s 7 of E.C. Act. In the Licence cancelling proceeding, the petitioner submitted show cause, that was considered by the Collector and by order dated 23.11.2000, it was ordered that since the petitioner has violated Clause 6, 8 & 9 of the terms and conditions of the licence, the show cause filed by the petitioner was rejected. Against that, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner and that has also been dismissed on 23.11.2000. In the meantime by order dated 25.9.2001, Confiscation Proceeding was also decided against the petitioner and he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 123/01 against the order passed in Confiscation by the Collector, Begusarai in Confiscation Case No. 25/2000. The Sessions Judge, Begusarai by his order dated 16.10.04 quashed the order of the Collector, passed in Confiscation Proceeding and also rected to release 1877 litres of Kerosene Oil seized from premises of the Petitioner. 4. Petitioners case is that for the same allegation, the Confiscation Proceeding was initiated as well as the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. The Sessions Judge, Begusarai by his order dated 16.10.04 quashed the order of the Collector, passed in Confiscation Proceeding and also rected to release 1877 litres of Kerosene Oil seized from premises of the Petitioner. 4. Petitioners case is that for the same allegation, the Confiscation Proceeding was initiated as well as the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. The order passed by the Collector in the Confiscation case has been quashed and the seized articles was directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. It tantamounts that the allegation made against the petitioner so far keeping the excess Kerosene oil for the purpose of black marketing has been found to be false. Once such allegation has been found to be false, there is no reason for cancelling the licence of the petitioner which has also been cancelled on the basis of same report of the Executive Magistrate. If the same act has been found false by one court of the competent jurisdiction, for the same act, he cannot be punished by way of cancellation of his licence, for violation of some of the Clause of the terms and conditions of the licence. Confiscation Proceeding was initiated as well as the licence was cancelled for same allegation which has not been proved, as such, the cancellation order should also be quashed and his licence be restored. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that a criminal proceeding has also been initiated and even if the order in the Confiscation Proceeding has been quashed, it cannot have any consequential impact so far the cancellation of licence is concerned. 6. This stand taken by the respondent cannot be appreciated as both the proceedings have been initiated for the same allegation. Once Confiscation Proceeding has been quashed there remain nothing for cancellation of licence of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The orders passed by the Collector, Begusarai cancelling the petitioners licence No. 164 of 1985 and the order passed by the Commissioner in Supply Appeal Case No. 4/2000-2001, are quashed. The Collector, Begusarai is directed to restore the licence No. 164 of 1985 in favour of the petitioner.