Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1785 (JHR)

Yugal Kishore Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-12

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2017
ORDER : Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already removed the defects as pointed out by the Office. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka (respondent No.3) being Order No. 26 of 2010 contained in Memo No. 261 dated 12.03.2010 whereby the public distribution shop licence (hereinafter referred to as "the PDS licence") of the petitioner has been cancelled and also for quashing the order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (respondent No.2) in R.M.A. Case No. 100/2009-10 whereby the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka (respondent No.3) has been upheld. 3. The factual background of the case is that the petitioner was granted license to run the fair price shop under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification), 1984. It is alleged that an enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer, Saraiyahat at the shop of the petitioner and following irregularities were noticed :- (a) It was found that the shop of the petitioner was closed before stipulated time; (b) The display board was not showing the cost of the food grains as well as the date; and no reason was assigned as to why the shop was closed; (c) Card holders have stated that on 27.11.2009, the petitioner had distributed 7 kg of wheat and 18 kg of rice by taking Rs. 5/-. He used to distribute 9 kg of wheat and 26 kg of rice in the interval of 2 months. After distribution, he also made entry for the months of December as well as January, 2010. 4. Alleging the aforesaid irregularities, the petitioner was asked to file reply to the show cause which was replied within the stipulated time, however the respondent No.3 not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, issued memo No. 119 dated 06.02.2010 whereby the petitioner was directed to file reply to the second show cause within a period of 3 days. The petitioner could not file reply to the second show cause resulting in the passing of impugned order No. 26 of 2010 contained in memo No. 261 dated 12.03.2010 whereby the respondent No. 3 cancelled the PDS license of the petitioner with immediate effect. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal being R.M.A. Case No. 100/2009-10 before the respondent No. 2, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2015. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal being R.M.A. Case No. 100/2009-10 before the respondent No. 2, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2015. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 in a cryptic manner without assigning any reason and as such the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 3 did not give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner for explaining his case. The respondent No.3 granted only 3 days' time to file reply to the second show cause, which was not enough to prepare and file the same and due to this reason, the reply to the second show cause could not be filed within the time fixed. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the impugned order of cancellation of PDS license was passed after due enquiry and also after giving enough opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and as such the same may not be interfered with. It is further submitted that both the authorities viz. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka and the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka have recorded concurrent findings with respect to the allegations made against the petitioner and as such, the contention of the petitioner is baseless and not tenable. It is further submitted that the Government Officials were regularly receiving complaints against the petitioner and his license was also suspended earlier in 2003 vide order No. 89/2008 contained in memo No. 792 dated 05.06.2008 due to irregularity in distribution of food grains. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials places on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was given three days' time to file the reply to the second show cause which could not be filed by the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order of cancellation of the license granted to the petitioner under Public Distribution System was passed having found the allegation true. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has assiduously argued that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has not been given ample opportunity to defend his case. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has assiduously argued that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has not been given ample opportunity to defend his case. 8. In the case of Balchandra L. Jarkiholi and others v. B.S. Yeddyurappa and others, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 143 held thus :- "143. Even if as held by this Court in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh case, Rules 6 and 7 of the Disqualification Rules are taken as directory and not mandatory, the appellants were still required to be given a proper opportunity of meeting the allegations mentioned in the show-cause notices. The fact that the appellants had not been served with notices directly, but that the same were pasted on the outer doors of their quarters in the MLA complex and that too without copies of the various documents relied upon by Shri Yeddyurappa, giving them three days' time to reply to the said notices justifies the appellants' contention that they had not been given sufficient time to give an effective reply to the show-cause notices." 9. One of the cardinal principles of administrative functioning is the duty to adopt a fair procedure and to provide adequate opportunity to the person likely to be affected by any adverse decision. It is well-established that requirements of natural justice and fair play mandate that an adverse order ought to be preceded by a show-cause notice and adequate opportunity. Such notice too must give enough time to the person to prepare the reply and file the same. A very well-known maxim governing the principle of natural justice is that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done and the administrative authorities are also bound to follow the said principle. The petitioner was provided only three days' time to file reply to the second show cause, which cannot be said to be sufficient time provided to file the same and as such the contention of the petitioner that due to lack of time, the reply could not be filed, appears to be quite convincing. The petitioner was provided only three days' time to file reply to the second show cause, which cannot be said to be sufficient time provided to file the same and as such the contention of the petitioner that due to lack of time, the reply could not be filed, appears to be quite convincing. Thus, in my considered view, the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 12.03.2010 cancelling the Public Distribution Shop License of the petitioner, has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the same cannot be sustained in law. Moreover, the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, also passed the order in appeal hardly in four lines without assigning any reason to dismiss the appeal. An authority of the State, who holds appellate jurisdiction under a statute, is not supposed to pass orders in such a casual manner. Such action loses the confidence of public in the quasi-judicial/administrative hierarchy, which is detrimental to interest of the country where numerous quasi-judicial powers have been conferred upon the administrative authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and different High Courts have time and again directed the administrative authorities to pass quasi-judicial orders with due application of mind and not in casual manner. 10. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (respondent No.2) in R.M.A Case No.100/2009-10 (Annexure-4) as well as the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka (respondent No.3) being Order No. 26 of 2010 contained in Memo No. 261 dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure-3) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.3 to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order based upon the materials available on record after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said order must be passed by the respondent No. 3 within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. The petitioner shall co-operate in the said proceeding. 11. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.