Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1714 (PNJ)

Vijay Oil Co. v. State of Haryana

2008-10-03

HEMANT GUPTA, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-28 dated 9.8.2007 and the order Annexure P-1 dated 19.9.2007. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20th July, 2007 in respect of, inappropriate delivery of 12,000 liters of kerosene under the Public Distribution Scheme. The said show cause notice was issued by the District Food & Supplies Controller, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as DFSC), who is also a District Magistrate within the meaning of clause 2(c) of the Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1976 (the short the order). 3. However, in the said order passed by the District Food & Supplies Controller, reliance has been placed on an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 8.8.2007 to suspend the licence of the petitioner. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the DFSC while considering the issue of cancellation of licence of the petitioner is discharging quasi- judicial functions and therefore, an order of cancellation of licence could be passed by the DFSC alone. To discharge such quasi-judicial functions, the DFSC cannot rely upon the approval or the advice of any Administratively Superior Authority. Thereafter, order passed by the DFSC on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is wholly illegal and not sustainable. 5. The said argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner could not be controverted in any meaningful manner by Mr. Mehra, It was contended by Mr. Nehra that the order passed is by DFSC who has issued the show cause notice and that the reference to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 8.8.2007 in the impugned order is not the basis of the order passed by DFSC. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that DFSC, in fact, has relied upon the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 8.8.2007 to suspend the licence of the petitioner. The quasi-judicial authority while discharging quasi judicial functions under the statutory orders-cannot rely upon an order passed by an Administratively Superior Authority. Either the District Magistrate himself passes an order after complying with the principles of natural justice, being competent authority under clause 2(c) of the Order or the DFSC passes an order in his own judicial wisdom after complying with the requirements of law. The approval sought from Distt. Either the District Magistrate himself passes an order after complying with the principles of natural justice, being competent authority under clause 2(c) of the Order or the DFSC passes an order in his own judicial wisdom after complying with the requirements of law. The approval sought from Distt. Magistrate (Deputy Commissioner) at the back of the petitioner cannot be relied upon by the DFSC as to suspend the licence of the petitioner. 7. Consequently, we set aside the impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 19.9.2007 and P-28 dated 9.8.2007. However, it shall be open to the Competent Authority under, the order to take such action as considered necessary and appropriate in accordance with law. Allowed in aforementioned terms. Petition allowed.