Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 828 (PAT)

Kunji Lal Sahni v. State of Bihar

2015-06-23

JYOTI SARAN

body2015
ORDER Heard Mr. Pancham Lal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, Assisting Counsel to SC-4 for the State. 2. The license of the petitioner bearing License No. 20-MUS-04/08 for operating a shop under the Public Distribution System has been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, East Muzaffarpur vide order dated 31.10.2011, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-3. 3. The only issue that has been raised by the petitioner to question the impugned order is that it is based on a vague charge sheet inasmuch as the allegations are vague and do not specifically point to any irregularity. 4. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the charge sheet present at Annexure-1 which charges the petitioner on four counts, namely: – (a) The shop was found closed without notice; (b) Due to closure the records could not be verified; (c) The consumers have complained that the petitioner opens his shop irregularly and on questioning he replies that he has not received ration; and (d) That the petitioner obtains coupons for two months in return of supply of ration for one month. 5. Considering the nature of allegations that this Court vide order passed on 7.4.2015 required the respondents to support the charges on the basis of the materials. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed but the materials supporting the charges are conspicuously missing. A proceeding for cancellation of license is quasi judicial in nature and unless the license holder is confronted with specific allegations, he is seriously prejudiced to make any replies. Obviously, it is in view of the vagueness of the charges that a simple reply contradicting the charges was filed by the petitioner which has simply been rejected by the licensing authority inter alia on grounds of being not satisfied. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the vagueness of the charges, I am of the opinion that the order impugned resting on such vague charges cannot be upheld and as a consequence the order of cancellation of the license of the petitioner dated 31.10.2011 passed by the licensing authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, East Muzaffarpur is set aside and the license of the petitioner is restored. 8. The writ petition is allowed.