Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 8 (JHR)

Parwati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-05

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order Seeking quashing of order dated 03.11.2010 in Case No. 11/2010 and order dated 01.10.2012 in Misc. Appeal Case No. 13 of 2011, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was issued a licence being Licence No. 22/04 for distribution of various articles/commodities to the consumers of village-Bhusur, Latehar. On the allegation that the petitioner has not distributed commodities to the consumers for two months and misbehaved with them, vide Memo dated 04.08.2010 the licence of the petitioner was suspended and an enquiry was conducted in the matter. Finally, vide order dated 03.11.2010, licence of the petitioner was cancelled and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 has been replaced by the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Latehar cancelling the licence of the petitioner in exercise of power under Clause 11 (i) & (ii) is not sustainable. It is further submitted that the Block Supply Officer is not competent to make search and seizure as, the Block Supply Officer has not been authorized by the State Government in terms of Clause 10 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and therefore, the enquiry conducted in the matter was not nonest and no reliance can be placed on the enquiry report for taking punitive action against the petitioner 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand resisted the writ petition and submitted that it has been found after enquiry that the petitioner did not supply commodities to the consumers and she indulged in blackmarketing of the commodities and therefore, her licence has rightly been cancelled. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The records of the case disclose that vide Memo dated 04.08.2010 the licence of the petitioner was suspended and she was asked to submit her reply. An enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer through Panchayat Sevak and Block Animal Husbandry Officer. During the enquiry, 79 ration cards were seized from the shop of the petitioner and an enquiry report was submitted on 11.08.2010. An enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer through Panchayat Sevak and Block Animal Husbandry Officer. During the enquiry, 79 ration cards were seized from the shop of the petitioner and an enquiry report was submitted on 11.08.2010. An Enquiry Committee was constituted vide letter dated 16.08.2010 constituting Panchayat Sevak, Block Animal Husbandry Officer and Block Supply Officer for verifying the stock register and distribution register relating to the supply and distribution of articles and commodities under the A.P.L., B.P.L and Antyodaya Food Scheme Programmes and the enquiry report was submitted on 07.10.2010 recording that the petitioner failed to produce distribution register of sugar. Antyodaya and B.P.L. card holders have stated that they did not receive sugar. After the enquiry, it has been found that the petitioner sold the commodities including the Kerosene oil and sugar in black market. As many as 21 card holders were examined in course of enquiry and I find that the allegation against the petitioner has been found proved. In so far as, the contention that after promulgation of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 in view of Clause 14 of 2001 Order, the provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 would not be workable, I find that it is not in dispute that the Licence No. 22 of 2004 was issued to the petitioner under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. It is not the case of the petitioner that under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, the Deputy Commissioner has no power to cancel the licence. I further find that search and seizure by a person even if not authorized, would not be a ground for rejecting the enquiry report. The Enquiry Committee was constituted by the competent authority and it is a matter of record that the petitioner failed to produce complete stock register and distribution register. I am of the opinion that in these facts, the technical plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted and the findings of the Enquiry Committee cannot be brushed aside. 7. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.