Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 896 (JHR)

Deo Kumar Paswan v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-23

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the original order dated 20th July 2010 passed by the respondent no. 5-the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra whereby the Fair Price Shop Licence No. 4/2000 in the name of the petitioner, has been cancelled. He is also aggrieved by the Appellate Order dated 7th March 2012 (Annexure-6) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra (Respondent No. 4) as well as Revisional Order dated 16th May 2012 (Annexure-7) passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the original authority without initiating any proceeding as contemplated under Rule-11(2) of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, has passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and has not taken into account the defence of the petitioner as he was not allowed to adduce evidence in his support to deny the allegations. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have relied upon extraneous grounds while affirming the original order by referring to certain guidelines framed pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was never brought to the petitioner's notice to respond to the same. 4. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Fair Price Shopkeeper having Licence No. 4/2000 for a shop at village Kharanti in the district of Hazaribagh now Chatra. He was carrying on Fair Price Shop in accordance with the terms of licence since the year 2000. But was surprised to receive a show-cause notice dated 24th June 2010 (Annexure-1) asking him to give reply to the allegations in respect of the charges levelled against him. The charges were that during inspection made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra on 23rd June , the shop was found closed; that he had lifted the food articles for public distribution, but the same was not distributed to the persons below the poverty line and beneficiaries of Antyodya Yojna on the date fixed; that he was carrying out business of Fair Price Shop in a whimsical manner which is contrary to the terms of the licence. The petitioner responded by filing his reply to the show-cause vide Annexure-2 dated 5th July 2010 also enclosing an affidavit said to have been sworn on behalf of twenty such persons who were alleged to have made allegations against the petitioner. He has also taken a plea that on the fateful day, he had met with a motorcycle accident and gone for treatment, that is why the shop was closed. In the meantime earlier, the petitioner had also been served with second show-cause notice on 25th June 2010 in which it was also indicated that several BPL Card Holders and beneficiaries of Antyodya Yojna had made complaints and reference of some of them was also indicated in the show-cause (Annexure-4); the shop was not having display board when the shop was inspected on 23rd June 2010, he had failed to disclose any reason for closure of the shop. These acts were clearly in contravention of the terms of the licence and allegations made by the card holders show that he was indulging in irregularity in P.D.S.. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, submits that there were specific allegations against the petitioner namely, (a) that the shop was found closed, (b) that several card holders had made allegations against the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer relating to irregularity in distribution of PDS material and (c) the display board and the name of the beneficiaries were also not being displayed in the shop when inspection was made. The petitioner had failed to furnish cogent reply in respect of all these three allegations and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have given enough opportunity to the petitioner and have taken into regard all his contentions and thereafter, they have upheld the original order. He also submits that the provisions of Order of 1984, referred to by the petitioner, contemplates issuance of show-cause to the licencee and only upon consideration of his reply, any order of cancellation of shop is to be passed. The same has been complied in the present case. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders as well as the relevant materials on record. The same has been complied in the present case. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders as well as the relevant materials on record. The facts which have been narrated herein-above, are not disputed by the petitioner also that the petitioner had been served with two show-cause notices, first on 24th June 2010 and second on 25th June 2010 enumerating specific charges of violations of provisions of conditions of licence by the petitioner, inter-alia that the shop was found closed on a particular day when it was inspected without any explanation; several card holders had made allegations against the petitioner about irregularity in distribution of food articles; no display board or list of beneficiaries was found in the shop when it was inspected. On perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the petitioner had failed to furnish enough reasons to meet the charges which were levelled against him. The petitioner was given enough opportunity and each of the contentions of the petitioner were also discussed by the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority. The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2001(1) JCR 265 (jhr) and submits that due to non-compliance of the provisions of Order of 1984, cancellation is bad in law. The Licencing Authority cannot rely upon the allegation in the enquiry report without taking into account the explanation of the licencee before passing any order of cancellation and revocation of the licence. In the present case however, as have been observed herein above, the petitioner has been given two show-cause notices and the details of the allegations made by the BPL card holders were also indicated in the second show-cause notice. It is the contention of the petitioner that he should have been allowed to adduce evidence in respect of each of the persons who had made allegation in order to prove his defence. However, in a proceeding under the Unification Order of 1984, such a long drawn detailed procedure as contemplated in the normal proceeding in a Court of Law, is not conceived. Provisions of Rule 11(2) of Unification Order, 1984 contemplate issuance of showcause and opportunity to the licencee to furnish response to the same which has been duly complied in the instant case. Provisions of Rule 11(2) of Unification Order, 1984 contemplate issuance of showcause and opportunity to the licencee to furnish response to the same which has been duly complied in the instant case. The petitioner has been found to be committing irregularity and also not able to furnish sufficient explanation. There are consistent findings of fact by the three statutory authorities on each of the charges. Therefore, this Court in the totality of the facts and circumstances, is not inclined to interfere in the present writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.