Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 366 (JHR)

Bhairav Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-03-28

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 275/Aa dated 31.7.2006 (An-nexure-1) passed by the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub- divisional Officer, Dhanbad whereby the petitioners license for Public Distribution Shop has been put under suspension with immediate effect. It has been stated that the petitioner was given license to run the P.D.S. shop in the year 1991. He had been running his said shop without any complain to the satisfaction of all concerned. Suddenly by order dated 31.7.2006, the petitioners license, along with others, was put under suspension. A show-cause notice was issued asking the petitioner and others to explain as to why their licenses be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply immediately thereafter. But till date no order has been passed revoking the suspension of the petitioners license. The petitioner made several requests and representations, but till date no order has been passed. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that one Truck bearing Registration No. WP-15A-2764 loaded with 35 drums of kerosene oil was intercepted and seized by the In-charge Block Supply Officer on 26.7.2006. On the drums seized by him names of six P.D.S. dealers were fount written out of which the petitioner was on of those PDS dealers. On the said seizure, the petitioners license was suspended by order dated 21.7.2006 and a criminal case was also lodged against the petitioner and other PDS dealers. 3. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondents have no authority to keep the petitioners license under suspension for more than 90 days as envisaged under Clause 11(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. 4. Learned J.C. to G.P. I, on the other hand, submitted that though a specific provision under Clause 11(2), as submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is also an accused along with others in a criminal case. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is an admitted case that the petitioners license has been put under suspension on certain allegations. However, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner on the basis of the said allegations. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Sr. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is an admitted case that the petitioners license has been put under suspension on certain allegations. However, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner on the basis of the said allegations. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioners license cannot be kept under suspension for the period exceeding 90 days. The pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for indefinite suspension of the petitioners license. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Vishnu Roller Floor & Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in 1994 (1) Eastern Criminal Cases 109 (Pat). The respondents could not show any justification for keeping the petitioners license under suspension beyond the period of 90 days, particularly, when there is no adverse order against the petitioner in the said matter. 6. Considering the above, this writ petition is allowed. It is held that the order of suspension of the petitioners license as contained in Annexure-1 lost its force after a lapse of 90 days and the same is deemed to be vacated. 7. The petitioner now can approach the concerned authority for the purpose of allotment of articles etc.