Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 859 (JHR)

Lal Chand Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-26

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.12.2011 passed in Ranchi Revision Case No. 36 of 2011 by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi(respondent no.2) whereby he dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in License Appeal No. 130 R 15/200809 by which the petitioner's appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 06.12.2008 passed by respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner's license granted under Public Distribution System under Bihar Trade Articles has been cancelled. 2. The impugned orders have been challenged on the ground that the orders of the Licensing Authority, Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority are mechanical, illegal and not sustainable. It has been stated that the showcause notice dated 27.10.2008 was issued to the petitioner by the SubDivisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, who is the Licensing Authority, alleging that the several irregularities were found in the shop of the petitioner which included involvement in black marketing and not distributing the prescribed quantity of articles such as rice, wheat and kerosene oil etc. to the Red/Yellow Card holders and other Card holders, names of Red/Yellow Card holders were not exhibited, the articles are sold on higher price than the prescribed price and depriving the Card holders by saying that no article is supplied for Red Card holders. Notice was issued at the behest of the Deputy Commissioner, who is the Appellate Authority, who had accorded sanction for cancelling the license. The Licensing Authority on the said basis has cancelled the petitioner's license by the impugned order on the only ground that the explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. There was no application of mind of the Licensing Authority on the facts and materials and the order was nonspeaking. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order but the Appellate Authority also did not consider the grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred revision before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur. Learned Revisional Authority dismissed the revision without appreciating the ground. 3. It is submitted that all the said orders were passed without proper application of mind and the same are illegal. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred revision before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur. Learned Revisional Authority dismissed the revision without appreciating the ground. 3. It is submitted that all the said orders were passed without proper application of mind and the same are illegal. 4. The respondents contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit and stating interalia, that several complaints about the irregularities in the shop of the petitioner were reported before the concerned authority by the Card holders. On the basis of the allegations, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner and sanction was also obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for cancellation of the petitioner's licence. The petitioner was given opportunity to file his reply. The petitioner filed reply, but it was not found satisfactory. The Licensing Authority, thus, passed the order canceling the petitioner's license. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority has also considered the facts and materials on record and after proper appreciation, rightly dismissed the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record. Annexure2 is the showcause notice given to the petitioner in which several allegations were mentioned. Annexxure3 is the reply by the petitioner. 6. On perusal of the petitioner's reply, I find that he has not denied/disputed the allegations made in the notice to showcause. He has only stated that some persons with vested interest, are against the petitioner as he provides the articles on proper price. He had prayed for revocation of suspension of his license. 7. After going through Annexure3, I find that the petitioner has not filed any effective reply against the allegations made in the showcause notice (Annexure2). The Licensing Authority, after going through the reply, has rightly observed that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory and on that basis he passed the order cancelling the petitioner's license. 8. The petitioner then preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The Appellate Authority also considered the facts and materials and submissions of the parties and dismissed the appeal. In revision, the Revisional Authority has also considered the petitioner's revision and dismissed the same. 9. 8. The petitioner then preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The Appellate Authority also considered the facts and materials and submissions of the parties and dismissed the appeal. In revision, the Revisional Authority has also considered the petitioner's revision and dismissed the same. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of the Licensing Authority, Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority are bad as they passed orders without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and various grounds taken by him. 10. As aforesaid, the petitioner in his reply has not disputed/denied or has brought any facts on record to be considered by the Licensing Authority or the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority. The Licensing Authority has, thus, rightly held that the petitioner's explanation is not satisfactory. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order of Licensing Authority is illegal as the same was passed at the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who is the Appellate Authority. 12. On going through the record, I find that there was no such direction of the Deputy Commissioner. It was mentioned in the showcause notice that the proceeding for cancellation was also sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner but after the said order, the proceeding was initiated and opportunity was given to the petitioner to meet the allegations. But the petitioner did not even deny the allegations. He himself has filed a brief reply without specifically/particularly denying the allegations made against him. 13. I, therefore, find no arbitrariness or illegality in holding that the petitioner's explanation was not satisfactory. No ground is made out in the writ petition to interfere with the impugned orders. 14. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.