Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 172 (JHR)

Ganesh Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-21

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Aggrieved by cancellation of PDS shop license vide order dated 16.01.2014, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was granted PDS license No. 04 of 1995 for PDS shop. A show-cause notice was issued on 07.09.2013 for cancellation of the PDS license. The petitioner's explanation was considered false and on the recommendation of Block Supply Officer, Dhalbhumgarh, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatshila cancelled the license. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Shrey Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 16.01.2014 is a cryptic order. It is contended that non-consideration of the plea taken by the petitioner renders the impugned order dated 16.01.2014 unsustainable. 5. Raising a question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, Miss Ananya, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioner must, first avail the alternative remedy available to him. 6. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. A show-cause notice dated 07.09.2013 was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner distributed 3 litres kerosene oil to the beneficiaries though, he lifted 1536 litres kerosene oil for the month of June and July. The petitioner in his reply dated 14.09.2013 admitted that he distributed only 3 litres kerosene oil to the card-holders and asserted that the remaining kerosene oil is stored in his shop. The petitioner further asserted that the distribution of 3 litres kerosene oil to the card-holders is recorded in the sale-register as well as in the PDS cards. The petitioner denied that a written or an oral order for distributing 3½ litres kerosene oil was issued to him. The impugned order dated 16.01.2014 discloses that the Block Supply Officer, Dhalbhumgarh found the explanation of the petitioner as false. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have not disclosed that an order for distribution of 3½ litres kerosene oil was issued to the petitioner. For ascertaining the truthfulness of the defense taken by the petitioner, it appears that no verification of the stock was conducted. The impugned order dated 16.01.2014 discloses that the Block Supply Officer, Dhalbhumgarh submitted a report however, a copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner. For ascertaining the truthfulness of the defense taken by the petitioner, it appears that no verification of the stock was conducted. The impugned order dated 16.01.2014 discloses that the Block Supply Officer, Dhalbhumgarh submitted a report however, a copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner. The plea of alternative remedy taken by the respondent-State is liable to be rejected. In the absence of reasons disclosed in the impugned order dated 16.01.2014, the appellate authority cannot adjudicate the appeal, if any, preferred by the petitioner, on merits. In Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 336 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "27.................... The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected." 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, the writ petition stands allowed. Order dated 16.01.2014 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatshila for taking a fresh decision in the matter, after furnishing a copy of the report of the Block Supply Officer, Dhalbhumgarh.