Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 649 (PAT)

Jagdish Rai v. State Of Bihar

2013-06-18

JAYANANDAN SINGH

body2013
ORAL ORDER In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no.4), as contained in Annexure-6, by which he has cancelled the PDS dealer’s licence of the petitioner. It has been asserted that the challenge of the petitioner was maintainable and fit to be sustained on the ground that (i) the impugned order has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity to him; (ii) the same was vitiated on account of direction of the District Magistrate for action to be taken against him on the basis of report submitted by the officials; (iii) the order of the District Magistrate had taken away the right of petitioner to appeal against the said order and (iv) there was non-consideration of show cause reply of the petitioner by respondent no.4. 2. Facts of the case are that there was some complaint against the petitioner by some of the beneficiaries/consumers, vide Annexure-1. It was accompanied with individual statements of the some of the complainants also and was addressed to the District Supply Officer who appears to have forwarded it to the Block Supply Officer for enquiry. Accordingly, the Block Supply Officer held enquiry and submitted his report through letter no.261 dated 13.10.2012, vide Annexure-2. The District Supply Officer, in turn, forwarded the same to the District Magistrate with a copy of the same to respondent no. 4 through his letter no.1692 dated 8.11.2012, vide Annexure-3, for information and for further action. On receipt of the said letter, respondent no. 4 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner through memo no.878 dated 29.11.2012, vide Annexure-4, enclosing the said letter of the District Supply Officer, report of the Block Supply Officer, the complaint of the consumers and copies of the statements recorded during the enquiry. Petitioner accordingly submitted his reply, vide Annexure-5 dated 3.12.2012. Finally, respondent no. 4 passed the impugned order, as contained in memo no.59 dated 23.01.2013, vide Annexure-6. 3. In respect of the first challenge of the petitioner that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to him, this Court finds that notice to the petitioner is dated 29.11.2012 in response to which he filed a reply on 3.12.2012. In his reply, he has not taken any stand that either the time for reply was short or any relevant material or document had not been supplied to him depriving him of reasonable opportunity to place his defence before the Licensing Authority. In his reply, he has not taken any stand that either the time for reply was short or any relevant material or document had not been supplied to him depriving him of reasonable opportunity to place his defence before the Licensing Authority. 4. Much argument was advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of direction of the District Magistrate to the Licensing Authority for taking action on the report submitted by the officials. Learned counsel for the petitioner put great stress on the opening of the impugned order with the wordings ^^ftyk inkf/kdkjh] oS’kkyh ds i= la[;k 1692 fnukad 8-11-12-^^ By this learned counsel for the petitioner inferred that there was a direction by the District Magistrate, who was the Appellate Authority under the law, to take action against the petitioner which vitiated the impugned order as it amounted to influencing the decision of a quasi-judicial authority in exercise of its statutory powers. 5. It appears to this Court that the inference drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner from the above wordings of the order is totally misconceived. The letter number mentioned therein is 1692 of 08.11.2012. This letter number is the letter number of the letter of the District Supply Officer to the District Magistrate with a copy of the same to respondent no. 4, as contained in Annexure-3. The same letter number has been mentioned in the show cause notice also referring the same as letter of the District Supply Officer. It is not possible to conceive that the day the District Supply Officer sent a letter to the District Magistrate with letter no. 1692, the District Magistrate also issued a letter to respondent no. 4 with some directions on the very same day under the same letter number. Thus, it is apparent that the letter number which has been mentioned in the first line of the impugned order is of the letter of the District Supply Officer, as contained in Annexure-3, and not a letter of the District Magistrate. Apparently, it is just a mistake which has cropped-up in the first line of the impugned order of respondent no. Apparently, it is just a mistake which has cropped-up in the first line of the impugned order of respondent no. 4 wherein he has missed to mention the word ^^vkiwfrZ^^ between the words ^^ftyk^^ and the word ^^inkf/kdkjh^^ Hence, this ground of challenge to the impugned order has also no legs to stand as this Court does not find any reason to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was any interference by the District Magistrate in the decision making process at the level of respondent no. 4. Once this finding is arrived at, this Court has only to observe that right of appeal was available to the petitioner against the impugned order which he has not availed. 6. In respect of the fourth ground of challenge to the impugned order, this Court finds that the sole ground of defence taken by the petitioner in his reply is that the complainants were of one family and due to politics and land dispute they had filed the complaint. Though the reply does mention about some application of the consumers in his support, duly certified by the Mukhiya, UP-Mukhiya, Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti member and Ward- member, as enclosed with his reply, no such application has been produced on record as attached to his reply. In reply the number of pages attached to the reply is also left blank on the last page which makes it doubtful as to whether, in fact, petitioner had attached any such application with his reply or not. So far as his stand that the complainants were of one family and because of village politics and land dispute they had filed the complaint is concerned, this Court finds that respondent no. 4 has considered it in his order and has found that the same was not correct as complainants were not of one family and even not of one religion. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the stand of the petitioner that there was non-consideration of his show cause reply has also no force. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order of a Bench of this Court in the case of Nawin Kumar Vs. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the stand of the petitioner that there was non-consideration of his show cause reply has also no force. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order of a Bench of this Court in the case of Nawin Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [ 2006 (4) PLJR 429 ] and has placed reliance particularly on the following observations of the Court appearing in paragraph 10 of the order :- “There is yet another ground on which the order cannot be sustained. Undisputedly the order has been passed by the licensing authority in exercise of his quasi judicial function under clause 11(1) of the Unification Order. It is equally well settled that it requires no authority that a quasi judicial authority is to act on his own. He cannot be said to have acted within his jurisdiction, if he acts on direction/dictation of superior. In the present case it is not disputed that he has mechanically acted on the direction of the Collector of the district. This renders the order void ab initio being wholly without jurisdiction.” 8. The proposition of law laid down by learned Court in the above quoted paragraph is the settled law. However, in the present case there is no material to satisfy this Court that, in the facts of the case, there was any interference or direction by the Collector of the district, which influenced the exercise of the quasi-judicial power by respondent no. 4 causing failure of independent exercise of his jurisdiction vested in him under law. 9. No alternative prayer was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to grant liberty to him to prefer appeal against the impugned order in terms of the provisions of the Control Order, 2001. In the circumstances this Court, otherwise finding no merit in the writ application, has no option left than to dismiss the writ application. 10. The writ application is accordingly dismissed.