Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1471 (JHR)

Ajit Kumar Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-26

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2015
Order : This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.08.2009, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Latehar (Annexure-3), whereby the PDS license of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. It appears that vide memo no. 168, dated 13.08.2009, petitioner's PDS license was suspended on the allegation that petitioner used to take bribe from the villagers for preparation of 'Lal Card' (Red Card) and 'Antyodaya Card'. By the said memo, petitioner was also asked to file his show cause. In response to the said direction, petitioner filed his show cause vide Annexure-2, wherein he denied all the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, the impugned order (Annexure-3) passed. 3. From perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-3), I find that on 25.08.2009, the respondent-Sub Divisional Officer, Latehar had examined some of the complainants namely, Bineshar Oraon, Fulsahay Oroan, Khushbu Ganjhu, Sukaldeo Oraon and Radha Oraon. It further appears from the order that the aforesaid villagers had clearly stated that the petitioner had not taken any money from them. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Latehar had not given any heed to the aforesaid statements of the villagers on the ground that when a query made to them as to how their signatures found in the complaint petition, they kept mum. 4. Under the said circumstance, I find that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner to prove that he has taken bribe from the villagers for preparing 'Lal Card' (Red Card) and 'Antyodaya Card'. 5. It further appears from the impugned order that while cancelling the license of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 had taken into account that the petitioner has not explained as to whom he has distributed the food grains and kerosene oil. From perusal of Annexure-1, I find that no allegation made against the petitioner that he was making any irregularity in distributing the food grains and kerosene oil. 6. Under the said circumstance, it is clear that the petitioner was not come prepared on 25.8.2009 to explain such query. Thus, I find that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to explain such allegation. 7. It further appears from the impugned order that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Latehar had taken into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the Block Statistics Supervisor, Block Programme Officer and Rozgar Sevak. Thus, I find that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to explain such allegation. 7. It further appears from the impugned order that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Latehar had taken into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the Block Statistics Supervisor, Block Programme Officer and Rozgar Sevak. It is submitted that the aforesaid enquiry report never served upon the petitioner, nor the said enquiry made in his presence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid officers before relying upon the said enquiry report. The aforesaid allegation has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Under the said circumstance, I find that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Latehar has relied upon the said enquiry report in violation of principle of natural justice. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I find that the impugned order (Annexure-3) has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice. 9. However, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has statutory alternative remedy by way of filing appeal and the same has not been availed, therefore, this writ application is not maintainable. 10. It is well settled that if there is violation of principle of natural justice, then the alternative remedy is no ground to reject the writ application. Since I have already come to the conclusion that the impugned order (Annexure-3) has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, the aforesaid plea taken by the learned counsel for the State is hereby rejected. 11. In view of the discussions and reasons mentioned herein above, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.8.2009(Annexure-3) is hereby quashed.