Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1568 (JHR)

Gobardhan Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2016-11-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner has assailed the Appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Misc. Appeal No. 12/2010-11 bearing Memo No. 757 dated 01.11.2012 (Annexure-7) whereunder, the order of cancellation of his PDS Licence No. 06/90 in respect of Fair Price Shop at village and block Kamdara in the district of Gumla by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gumla vide order contained at Annexure-3 bearing Memo No. 115 dated 06.05.2010, has been upheld and the appeal has been rejected. 3. Following irregularities were noticed on inspection of PDS shop, upon which the petitioner was asked to respond by show-cause dated 13.03.2010 inter-alia that, (i) petitioner had not distributed the food grains lifted in the month of January 2010 under Antyodaya and BPL Scheme, (ii) he had also not distributed the quota of sugar for the month of September and October 2009, (iii) the store register was also not properly maintained, (iv) the list of beneficiaries under BPL and Antyodaya Scheme were not duly exhibited in front of the shop, (v) the store and price table were also not available on the date of inspection and (vi) the petitioner had not produced the register relating to distribution of sugar for the month of January 2010. Petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure-2 taking the plea of illness for non-distribution of the food grains in the month of January 2010. He claimed that the food grains were distributed later on after receiving letter dated 193 dated 15.03.2010 of the Circle Officer, Kamdara. In respect of the second charges, it is stated that he had produced the sale register to the concerned officer relating to the distribution of sugar; he has accepted that on account of fear, he could not produce the store register at the time of inspection. He further stated that the list of BPL and Antyodaya Scheme beneficiaries were exhibited within the shop. In respect of charge no. v, it is stated that store and price list indicated on the table in front of the shop were mischievously wiped out by some children. 4. Perusal of the order of cancellation (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gumla shows consideration of his show-cause and the inspection report as well which prima facie establish the aforesaid charges and the explanation of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. 4. Perusal of the order of cancellation (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gumla shows consideration of his show-cause and the inspection report as well which prima facie establish the aforesaid charges and the explanation of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. The charges alleged were found to be established against the petitioner which has led to cancellation of his PDS Licence. 5. Petitioner had approached this Court earlier in WPC No. 7653/2011 as the appeal pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla was not being disposed of expeditiously. Pursuant to the direction issued in the said writ petition vide Annexure-6 dated 06.08.2012, the impugned Appellate order has been passed. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no new grounds has been made out on behalf of the petitioner to dislodge the findings of the Original Licencing Authority. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla has found the charges relating to non-distribution of food grains under the Antyodaya and BPL Scheme and sugar for the period September to October 2009 as serious enough indicating resort to black marketing also. Upon consideration of the grounds of appeal, his show-cause and materials obtained during course of inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla also did not find any reason to interfere in the order of cancellation. 7. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner on the same grounds of challenge, as reflected in the show-cause reply submitted before the Licencing Authority, no infirmity in the decision making process is found warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction. There is no merit in the writ application, it is accordingly dismissed.