Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1499 (JHR)

Damodar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-26

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed wherein prayer has been made to quash the order dated 31.7.2006 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, respondent no.2 whereby and whereunder licence of the petitioner granted under the provision of the Bihar Trade Articles ( Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been suspended. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after the licence was suspended, no step for cancellation of the licence was ever taken till date and as such, the order of suspension would be deemed to have been vacated, in view of the stipulation made in sub-Section (2) of Section 11 of the Act and thereby the order under which licence of the petitioner has been suspended is fit to be quashed. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that he has received statement of the fact but the counter affidavit could not be filed. Upon it when question was put as to whether any statement is there about initiation of any proceeding for cancellation of licence or that the licence has been cancelled, it was stated that no such statement is there in the statement of the facts, rather statement is to the effect that first information report has been lodged for contravention of the provision of the Unification Order and the matter is still under investigation. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that till date petitioner’s licence has neither been cancelled not any proceeding has been initiated for cancellation of the licence. In that view of the matter, the order of suspension would be deemed to have been vacated in view of the provision as contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 11 of the Act which reads as follows: “ No order of cancellation shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of proceeding of cancellation of licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. Such suspension shall be limited only to those trade articles regarding which contravention has been made by the licensee.” Having regard to the statutory provision, the order of suspension is deemed to be vacated after expiry of 90 days. In he result, order of suspension of licence of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the competent authority by filing a representation with a request to supply of trade articles for distribution and within a period of one month from the date of filing of the representation, the concerned authority shall take appropriate step for the same. Accordingly, this application is allowed.