Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 319 (JHR)

Sanjay Kumar Budhiya v. State of Jharkhand

2009-03-02

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2009
JUDGMENT Ajit Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief; 2. For Issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari, the order dated 15.9.2006, passed by respondent No. 3 in License Cancellation Appeal No. 27 of 2006, as also Memo No. 79 dated 12.12.2005, issued by respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder, on the basis of approval granted by the District License Committee, the Public Distribution System License No. 5 of 1993, Issued in favour of the petitioner, has been cancelled, which is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 3. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of cancellation has been passed by incompetent authority, who has no jurisdiction as per Rule 11 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. 4. The second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that even before the show-cause, direction was issued by the Secretary on 17.7.04, and thus there was no independent decision taken by the S.D.O. in impugned order dated 12.12.05. He has also referred and relied upon order/judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P.S. No. 409/06 to support his contention. 5. The counsel for the respondents submits that the entire action has been taken by the competent authority, after due compliance of principles of natural justice and decision has been taken, which is valid and legal. 6. I have considered the argument: and pleading and the contention regarding the jurisdiction and authority, it will be relevant to refer definition clause 2(i), which is quoted as under; "Licensing Authority" means as officer not below the rank of S.D.0 appointed by the State Government to exercise the power's and perform the duties of the Licensing Authority for different areas and under the different provisions of this Order; 7. In the instant case there is no dispute that the order of cancellation was passed by the S.D.O, after considering the show-cause filed by the petitioner and pursuant to the enquiry report. 8. Be that as it may, in the reply to the show-cause no such contention was raised nor any objection raised challenging the authority which is even otherwise unsustainable in the eyes of law. 9. 8. Be that as it may, in the reply to the show-cause no such contention was raised nor any objection raised challenging the authority which is even otherwise unsustainable in the eyes of law. 9. It appears that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.C No. 474/0(5 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.4.06, with liberty to avail the remedy by filling appeal. 10. Subsequently, that writ petition was dismissed not disposed of and thus at that point of time as regard the first order, which is also sought to be challenged, has attained finality. 11. The judgment of the Division Bench referred and relied upon does not really reply the facts of the case that the licensing authority had given any liberty to show cause or hearing the petitioner in those cases and it is in total non-compliance of the order. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this writ petition being devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed, more so, when the enquiry report has proved gross misbehavior on the part of the petitioner and the allegation against the petitioner is also proved. 13. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.