Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 487 (JHR)

Ram Lakhan Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-09

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5432 of 2011 dismissing the writ petition, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The appellant has been allotted a P.D.S shop in the year 1998 vide Licence No. 14 of 1998 at Nagar Untari, Garhwa and was running the said shop. Based on the alleged complaint from the villagers vide order dated 9.04.2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa issued show cause notice to the appellant whereby his P.D.S licence was suspended with immediate effect and the appellant was directed to submit his reply as to why his licence be not cancelled on the ground of violation of terms of the licence. The appellant submitted his reply to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa on 17.4.2010. Not being satisfied with the reply of the appellant, vide order dated 20.04.2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa cancelled the P.D.S licence of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa dated 20.04.2010, the appellant preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa vide order dated 31.08.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. Challenging the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa and also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, the appellant filed writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 5432 of 2011, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.01.2012 holding that the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority have concurrently found that the appellant has breached the conditions of the licence. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellant's contentions give rise to the factual dispute, which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Writ Court. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rishi Pallav, J.C to A.A.G for the respondents-State. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before cancelling the P.D.S licence, no proper enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa and no opportunity was given to the appellant to explain his stand. We have heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rishi Pallav, J.C to A.A.G for the respondents-State. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before cancelling the P.D.S licence, no proper enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa and no opportunity was given to the appellant to explain his stand. Learned counsel further submitted that Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa has initiated proceeding dated 31.3.2010 at the instance of some co-villagers and had an opportunity been given to the appellant, the appellant would have been in a position to explain the same before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa. It was further submitted that neither the enquiry report was furnished to the appellant nor sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to explain his stand before the appellate authority and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that as per the complaints against the appellant, it is alleged that from January, 2010 to March, 2010 the appellant has not supplied the P.D.S commodities to the card holders and further the appellant has given only 32 K.Gs food-grains to B.P.L Card Holders and 30 K.Gs food-grains under Antoyadaya Yojna, as against quota of 35 K.Gs. Based on these complaints, after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant, his licence was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa vide order dated 20.4.2010, which was affirmed by the appellate authority-Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa by passing a detailed order dated 31.08.2010. Based on the concurrent finding arrived at by the licencing authority as well as by the appellate authority, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record. 8. By giving gist of the complaint, the appellant was directed to submit his reply before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa and after submission of explanation his licence was cancelled, against which, the appellant preferred appeal before the appellate authority-Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, which was dismissed by order dated 31.08.2010. 8. By giving gist of the complaint, the appellant was directed to submit his reply before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa and after submission of explanation his licence was cancelled, against which, the appellant preferred appeal before the appellate authority-Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, which was dismissed by order dated 31.08.2010. By perusal of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa dated 31.08.2010, it is seen that the contention of the appellant that the complaint has been lodged against him at the instance of some inimical co-villagers, has not been considered by the appellate authority. By perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, it is further seen that the order is not a detailed speaking order and only considering the gist of the allegation and stand of the appellant, the order has been passed. In that view of the matter, we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Before the appellate authority, the appellant has taken a specific stand that in the month of January, 2010, 257 B.P.L card holders and 78 out of 82 Antoyadaya Card Holders were distributed food-grain. The appellant has further taken a stand that in the month of February, 2010 out of 251 card holders, 207 card holders have been provided food-grain and 34 card holders have been given food-grain by Block Supply Officer and for rest of the card holders, food-grain is available in the godown. These specific stands of the appellant have not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority. Even though the licensing authority and the appellate authority have given concurrent finding, having regard to the stand taken by the appellant in his explanation dated 30.8.2011 (Annexure 4 to the memo of appeal), we are of the view that sufficient opportunity be afforded to the appellant to explain his stand. 9. For the foregoing discussions, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.01.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5432 of 2011 is set aside and this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa is directed to issue notice to the appellant to appear before him and afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant to submit his explanation/written statement and after so affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant, the respondent no. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa is directed to issue notice to the appellant to appear before him and afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant to submit his explanation/written statement and after so affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant, the respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa shall pass speaking order in accordance with law within four weeks after giving notice to the appellant, at an early date preferably within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.