Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 9 (JHR)

Sharma Coke Udyog v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-04

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2016
Order : Seeking quashing of order dated 21.04.2011 whereby, the licence granted by the District Industry Centre, Hazaribagh has been cancelled, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is dealing in the business of coal briquette. It is a small-scale industry and duly registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. A registration certificate dated 02.08.2010 was issued by the District Industry Centre, Hazaribagh. Subsequently, an agreement was executed with the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. for supply of 4200 MT coal under the new Coal Distribution Policy. On an allegation that the petitioner has misused the coal supplied to it by the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., the coal supply agreement was terminated and the General Manager, District Industry Centre, Hazaribagh cancelled the licence vide impugned order dated 21.04.2011. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of a faulty spot enquiry report, the coal supply agreement with the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. was terminated and merely on the ground that a First Information Report has been lodged, the licence under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 has been cancelled. It is submitted that under the 2006 Act, there is no provision for cancellation of licence once issued though, for contravention of provisions under the Act, a penalty has been provided. It is further submitted that under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, only the Central Government has the authority to cancel the licence granted to the petitioner. 4. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have asserted that during the spot verification it was found that the petitioner has misused the supply of coal by the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and accordingly, a First Information Report has also been lodged against the petitioner. 5. It is not in dispute that the District Industry Centre, Hazaribagh has issued the Acknowledgement (Part-II) under subsection (1) of Section 8 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 5. It is not in dispute that the District Industry Centre, Hazaribagh has issued the Acknowledgement (Part-II) under subsection (1) of Section 8 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. As noticed above, the petitioner which is dealing in the coal briquette was supplied 4200 MT coal from the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. The joint inspection report discloses that the petitioner has been found misusing the coal supplied by the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Against the cancellation order dated 24.02.2011 the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4305 of 2011 however, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition in order to challenge the order of cancellation of licence granted to its factory. The agreement for supply of coal was executed for the working of the licence and thus, misuse of coal would be a valid ground for cancelling the licence. After termination of the coal supply agreement, the licence has also become useless. Section 10A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 provides that the registration of an industrial undertaking can be revoked if for any other reason the registration has become useless or ineffective. The contention that under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, there is no provision for cancellation of licence once granted, is liable to be rejected. The District Industry Centre which has granted licence to the petitioner has power to cancel the same. Impugned order dated 21.04.2011 notices the joint inspection report and registration of the criminal case against the petitioner. Accordingly, on a communication from the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, the licence granted to the petitioner has been cancelled vide order dated 21.04.2011. The petitioner has not sought quashing of the First Information Report lodged against it on the allegation of misuse and black-marketing of coal. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the event the petitioner is finally exonerated in the criminal case, it may renew its prayer for grant of licence, if permissible in law.