Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1029 (JHR)

Dhirendra Nath Barik v. State of Jharkhand

2010-11-25

R.K.MERATHIA, VIJAI KUMAR MAHTO

body2010
Order Heard the parties. 2. W.P.C No. 3737 of 2009. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Saraikella issued notices to several Public Distribution System (PDS) Shop Dealers including the petitioners to show cause regarding misuse of foodgrains supplied to them under Jawahar Rojgar Yojona and for violating the terms of the licenses as well 'as the agreements of PDS Shops. After giving opportunity to them, .the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled their licenses holding that there has been violation of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licensing Unification & Control) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Unification Order) and also the terms of the agreement for running P.D.S. Shops. Against the said orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, petitioner no.8 Bhagirath Panda preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. By order dated 8.11.2001, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the said appeal on merit. After about 4 years, other petitioners preferred miscellaneous petitions before the Deputy Commissioner. The successor-Deputy Commissioner reversed the order passed by the predecessor Deputy Commissioner mainly on the ground that the dealers were granted bail in the criminal cases and the licenses were restored. One Sant Kumar Sahu preferred a writ petition being WPC No. 7816 of 2006 for restoration of his license. In compliance order passed in the said writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner initiated a proceeding. -The grievance of the writ petitioners is that without any notice to them and in their absence, the impugned order dated 30.8.2010 has been passed cancelling the licenses of several dealers including the petitioners. W.P.C. No. 3227 of 2010 The licenses of these writ petitioners were also cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer alongwith other dealers, as aforesaid. After the licenses of other licensees were restored, as aforesaid, the writ petitioners also filed miscellaneous petition before the Deputy Commissioner for passing similar orders. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the said miscellaneous petition. Against which, the petitioners filed writ petition being WPC No. 3857 of 2007, which was disposed of on 3.12.2008 remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to consider whether there has been discrimination between the similarly situated dealers or not. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order dated 20.3.2009 impugned in this writ petition. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that in terms of interim order dated 1'1.9.2009, passed in the 'aforesaid writ petition-WPC No. 3737 of 2009, the other dealers are running their PDS Shops. 4. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order dated 20.3.2009 impugned in this writ petition. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that in terms of interim order dated 1'1.9.2009, passed in the 'aforesaid writ petition-WPC No. 3737 of 2009, the other dealers are running their PDS Shops. 4. The questions thus arise: whether the successor Deputy Commissioner could review/reverse the orders passed by his predecessor-Deputy Commissioner, who rejected the appeals filed by the PDS Dealers on merits; and whether the review/miscellaneous petitions filed by some of the dealers, itself being not maintainable, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that the orders passed thereon by the successor-Deputy Commissioner is void ab initio and not binding on the State and whether in the facts and circumstances, noticed above, the dealers can raise a grievance of discrimination and violation of principles of natural justice? 5. Undisputedly, the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled the licenses of several dealers after issuing them notices and considering their show causes. It was, inter alia, held that the dealers have misused the foodgrains supplied to them under Jawahar Rojgar Yojana and they have violated the terms of the licenses as well as the agreement of PDS Shop. Some of the dealers preferred appeals against the said order before the then Deputy Commissioner, who after hearing the dealers dismissed the appeals on merits, holding inter alia that Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled the license after following the procedure, after considering the show causes and was fully competent to cancel the licenses and that the dealers had misused the foodgrains given to them under Jawahar Rojgar Yojana. It may be noted here that under the Unification Order only revision could be filed before the Commissioner against such orders rejecting the appeals and there is no provision for review. But surprisingly some of the dealers filed review/miscellaneous petitions after about 4 years when the Deputy Commissioner changed and the successor Deputy Commissioner-Mr. Agapit Soren reviewed/reversed the order of his predecessor and restored the licenses mainly on the ground that the licensees were granted bail in criminal cases. Some of the licensees filed miscellaneous petitions for passing similar orders of restoration of their licenses. The Deputy Commissioners, who succeeded Mr. Soren, rightly rejected such petitions by the impugned orders, inter alia, holding that the orders passed by the predecessor-Deputy Commissioner Mr. Some of the licensees filed miscellaneous petitions for passing similar orders of restoration of their licenses. The Deputy Commissioners, who succeeded Mr. Soren, rightly rejected such petitions by the impugned orders, inter alia, holding that the orders passed by the predecessor-Deputy Commissioner Mr. Soren were void ab initio and were not binding on the State, and that the review/miscellaneous petitions were not maintainable, and that the licenses were cancelled on valid grounds. Such action of the concerned licensees cannot be said to be bona fide and they cannot complain discrimination, or violation of principles of natural justice. The questions posed in paragraph 4 stands answered accordingly. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above and for the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. However, no costs. .