Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 186 (JHR)

Kali Pado Madal v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-25

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Fair price shop bearing Licence No. 14A/GND-94 in the name of the petitioner at Gram Macha Muhal, Govindpur Block has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 27.05.2008 passed by the Respondent No. 3-Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Dhanbad and has also been upheld by the Appellate Authority cum Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (Respondent no. 2) in TLA No. 08/2008 vide order dated 27.07.2009, also impugned herein. 3. On inspection of the petitioner's Shop on 04.01.2008 by a team of Officers, following irregularities were noticed:- i. Shop was found closed. ii. Price and stock table was not found in front of the Shop. iii. No reason for closure was intimated on the information table in front of the Shop. iv. No information relating to availability of stock, rate prescribed, name and details of BPL, Antoyadaya and APL card holders were put up on the Shop as mandated under the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. v. Stock Register, Sale Register, Cash Memo, etc. could not be verified on account of the shop being closed. vi. During course of inspection, several card holders assembled and started making complains of non-distribution of Kerosene Oil for more then six months as also allegations of mis-behavior with them. vii. Law and order situation had almost resulted on account of their unrest. Further allegations were made by certain persons that distribution of food articles have not been made for long periods of three months to one year. 4. All these charges were communicated through the show-cause notice dated 10.01.2008 (Annexure-2) to the petitioner by the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanabd. Petitioner took the plea that on the said date he had taken his wife for treatment to the Doctor and could not return within time due to heavy rush. Allegations relating to non distribution of Kerosene oil was refuted, stating that members of his own community and gotiya used to make unreasonable demand of supply of Kerosene oil in a fortnight itself. The shop of the petitioner is attached to Mohanpur village, dominated by Muslim community and he is unable to make supply requested by several members claiming to be from the same family. There has been no complain in respect of his shop since it has been operated from the year 1985. Therefore, he pleaded for dropping of the allegations. He also enclosed a certificate of one Dr. There has been no complain in respect of his shop since it has been operated from the year 1985. Therefore, he pleaded for dropping of the allegations. He also enclosed a certificate of one Dr. S.N. Choudhary who certified that his wife Anna Mandal was taken for treatment on 04.01.2008 for Acute Gastroenteritis. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad did not find his reply satisfactory on all these counts. He observed that petitioner made an excuse of treatment of his wife for his absence on the said date. The impugned order canceling the license was passed accordingly on 26.05.2008. The Appellate Authority Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has also not found any reason to interfere in the same by impugned order at Annexure-7 on consideration of the Memo of Appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the same, has taken the plea that the allegations made by the consumers/card holders were not inquired into; petitioner was not given any inquiry report on verification of the allegations made by the alleged card holders. The findings in impugned order are only a repetition of the charges and do not show any application of mind on behalf of the Licensing Authority. He has assailed the impugned order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. In support thereof, he relied upon judgment passed by this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Saw Vs. The State of Jharkand and Ors. [2013 (i) JLJR 209] as also in the case of Ram Lakhan Ram Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. [ 2014 (3) JCR 133 (Jhr)]. 6. Counsel for the State has defended the impugned order and relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit as well. He submits that opportunity to reply to the allegations have been accorded to the petitioner which is in compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner, on his part, has failed to meet the specific charge contained in the show-cause except taking a plea of treatment of his wife on the said date. No such inquiry report has been concealed from the petitioner. Inspection was done on a particular date by a team of Officials which found the aforesaid charges and were duly communicated to the petitioner for seeking his reply thereto. No such inquiry report has been concealed from the petitioner. Inspection was done on a particular date by a team of Officials which found the aforesaid charges and were duly communicated to the petitioner for seeking his reply thereto. The reply having been found unsatisfactory, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. 7. Considered the submission of the parties in the light of the relevant facts pleaded herein-above. The charges contained in the show-cause is a result of on spot inquiry of the shop of the petitioner on 04.01.2008 by a team of officials. Except the explanation that the petitioner had taken his wife for treatment on the said date, all other charges relating to non furnishing of Stock, Price Register, non display of details of Stock, rate of PDS articles, names and details of BPL, Antoyadaya and APL card holders, etc which were noticed, have not been explained through the show-cause of the petitioner. It further appears that the inspecting team faced violent crowd of aggrieved card holders who had complained of irregular supply of PDS items on the part of the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner that there has been no previous complain, is also refuted from the suspension order earlier passed against him vide Annexure-6 dated 22.12.2006 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad. These facts have been considered on merits by the Licensing Authority and Appellate Authority to which, there is no satisfactory reply by the petitioner. The requirement of opportunity of show-cause has been followed by the respondent before passing the impugned orders. Respondent do not appear to have relied upon any other inquiry report as claimed by the petitioner which, according to him, forms the basis of passing the impugned orders. 8. In totality of facts and circumstances of the case, order impugned does not suffer from infirmity inviting interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, judgments relied upon by the petitioner also do not come to his aid. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.