Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1463 (JHR)

Bhuneshwar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-24

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order : Aggrieved by order dated 29.10.2013 in License Cancellation Appeal No. 14/2013, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner was issued License No. 16/94 under the Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification Order, 1984). On an allegation of black marketing, a First Information Report vide Rajrappa P.S.Case No. 100/2012 under Section 7 of the E.C Act was registered on 29.12.2012. On the basis of the inspection carried on 29.12.2012 and consequent registration of the criminal case, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner duly replied however, vide order dated 18.03.2013, the license of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner thereafter, preferred License Cancellation Appeal No. 14/2013 challenging the order dated 18.03.2013. The present writ petition has been filed against dismissal of the said appeal vide order dated 29.10.2013. 3. Mr. A.K.Sinha, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the license of the petitioner was cancelled on a presumption that the petitioner was involved in black marketing of the food grains. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by a cryptic order, merely referring to the instruction contained in the letter dated 09.02.2013. It is contended that the appellate authority has not considered the specific plea taken by the petitioner and, the appellate order discloses complete non-application of mind by the appellate authority. 4. Raising an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioner has statutory remedy under the Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification Order, 1984). If the petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal, he can prefer revision under Section 29 of the Order, 1984. It is further submitted that the license of the petitioner was earlier suspended on two occasions and in the present incident also 212 bags of rice were found stored in his house. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. In so far as, the previous complains against the petitioner are concerned, I find that in the year 2003, two show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner. The first show-cause notice, issued on 30.01.2003, discloses that it was issued when in a surprise inspection the petitioner’s P.D.S shop was found closed without prior notice. 6. In so far as, the previous complains against the petitioner are concerned, I find that in the year 2003, two show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner. The first show-cause notice, issued on 30.01.2003, discloses that it was issued when in a surprise inspection the petitioner’s P.D.S shop was found closed without prior notice. The suspension of the petitioner’s P.D.S license was revoked after the petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, again on a complaint filed by the beneficiaries, Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.09.2003 however, the order of suspension was again recalled after considering the reply filed by the petitioner. The present incident is of the year 2012 and it has not been disclosed by the respondents whether during these 10 years any complain was received against the petitioner or not. It is a matter of record that the license of the petitioner in the previous 20 years was never cancelled. In these facts, suspension of license of the petitioner on two previous occasions would not lead to a presumption that the petitioner has been indulging in black marketing. A perusal of the show-cause notice dated 31.12.2012 discloses that at the time of inspection on 29.12.2012, the petitioner was not present in his house. The petitioner has taken a specific plea that he had gone to his relative's place in connection with a marriage and he returned only on 30.12.2012. The petitioner has also pleaded that neither any incriminating document was found during the course of search nor any incriminating circumstance was observed by the raiding party. However, the appellate order does not disclose that the specific plea taken by the petitioner has been considered by the appellate authority. Simply referring to the instruction contained in letter dated 09.02.2013, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Recording of reasons is an essential facet of adjudicatory process. In Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs. Workers Union reported in (1974) 3 SCC 318 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5. ...........The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. In many cases this investment of time and industry will be saved if reasons are given in support of the conclusions. So it is necessary to emphasise that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions”. 7. In view of the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, I am of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the petitioner requires to be heard afresh. Accordingly, impugned order dated 29.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority. License Cancellation Appeal No. 14/2013 is restored to its original file. The appellate authority shall issue notice to the petitioner and afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to him. 8. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.