Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 706 (JHR)

Deo Kumar Paswan v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-07

P.P.BHATT, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
Order 1. This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.7.2013 passed in W.P.C. No. 2288 of 2013 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and declining to pass the order restoring the licence of PDS Shop of the appellant. 2. The appellant is a Fair Price Shop Keeper having Licence No.4/2000. His Fair Price Shop was situated at village Dhebo Village Panchayat, District-Hazaribagh now Chatra. On 23.6.2010, vide memo no.1158, 5th respondent -Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra, issued a show cause notice to the appellant inter alia stated that the appellant's shop was closed on Wednesday and less quantity as fixed by the Govt. has been distributed. On 25.6.2010, again a show cause notice was issued by the 5th respondent – Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, stating that on 17.6.2010, the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, himself visited the shop and received some complaints. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant submitted his reply denying the allegations. Vide order dated 20.7.2010, by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, the licence of the PDS Shop of the appellant was cancelled. As against the order of cancellation of licence of the PDS Shop of the appellant dated 20.7.2010, the appellant filed appeal before the 4th respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Chatra and the same was dismissed on 7.3.2012. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal, the appellant filed revision before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, in Revision Case No.14 of 2012 but the same was dismissed on 16.5.2012. 3. The appellant thereafter filed W.P.C. No.2288 of 2013 and the same was dismissed on 23.7.2013 holding that the appellant has been found to be committing irregularity and has not been able to furnish sufficient explanation. Learned Single Judge further held that there are consistent findings by three statutory authorities on each of the charges and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ court cannot interfere and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner -appellant was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard at any point of time. It is submitted that explanation submitted by the petitioner-appellant that he met with an accident and had gone for treatment and that is why the shop remained closed, was not also accepted and believed by the authorities concerned at the time of taking decision in the case. It is submitted that explanation submitted by the petitioner-appellant that he met with an accident and had gone for treatment and that is why the shop remained closed, was not also accepted and believed by the authorities concerned at the time of taking decision in the case. It is further submitted that petitioner-appellant has been victimized at the behest of some rival groups. According to the petitioner-appellant some of the villagers have came forward and withdrawn the complaint. However, the authorities concerned have not considered their submissions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, the appellant belong to scheduled caste community and coming from lower strata of society could not timely and properly submitted explanation for want of proper legal assistance. Thus, according to the appellant, he was denied proper opportunity of being heard and thereby the action of the respondents is violative of the principle of natural justice and fair play, and therefore, alone on this ground, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and the mater is required to be remitted back to the concerned authority for de novo consideration. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the cancellation of the P.D.S. Shop shall have the civil consequences, and therefore, as per Section 11(2) of the Bihar & Jharkhand Control Orders, the reasonable opportunity of stating the case against the proposed cancellation ought to have been afforded. Section 11(2) of the Bihar & Jharkhand Control Orders (Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984, reads as under : “11. (2) No order of cancellation shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of proceedings of cancellation of licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. Such suspension shall be limited only to those trade articles regarding which contravention has been made by the licensee.” 6. Such suspension shall be limited only to those trade articles regarding which contravention has been made by the licensee.” 6. As against that, the leaned counsel for the respondent -State Government has submitted that the authorities concerned have given show cause notice and in response to the show cause notice, the explanation was submitted by the appellant but, since there was no reasonable justification given by the petitioner-appellant, the said explanation was not accepted and the detailed reasoned order has been passed by all the respective authorities and therefore, intervention of this Court is not needed in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions, it appears that the petitioner -appellant's Fair Price Shop has been ordered to be closed by virtue of the order dated 20.7.2010, and thereafter, the proceedings were initiated. The main grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that the procedure laid down in Section 11 Clause 2 of Bihar & Jharkhand Control Orders, has not been strictly followed in the instant case as reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant and instead of suspension of licence for a period of 90 days, straightway the order of closure was passed in this Case. Infact, in view of Section 11(2) of the said Act, initially licence was required to be suspended and thereafter inquiry was required to be conducted by giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant which was not done in the instant case. 8. On perusal of the order passed by the authorities, it appears that the reasonable opportunity of rendering explanation and production of certain documents in support thereof have not been given to the petitioner-appellant. 9. On reading Section 11(2) of Bihar & Jharkhand Control Orders, it is clear that before the proposed cancellation, the authorities are required to give the reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation. 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant-original petitioner belongs to the scheduled castes community and is coming from the lower strata of the society and therefore, for want of proper legal advice and guidance, he could not render proper explanation and thereby he has been denied proper opportunity of being heard, therefore, reasonable opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner -appellant by the respondent authority. 11. 11. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.7.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 2288 of 2013 is quashed and the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the 5th respondent – Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, for considering the matter afresh. The 5th respondent-the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, is directed to afford reasonable opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents/materials in support of his stand, and thereafter, shall pass the order afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Appeal allowed.