Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 430 (JHR)

Krishna Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-01

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. After an inspection was carried out in the fair price public distribution shop bearing Licence No. 22/1986 of the petitioner on 14th March 2011 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra cum Licensing Authority, he was served with a show-cause on 17th March 2011 (Annexure-2) inter-alia alleging (i) petitioner had lifted 2667 liters of kerosene oil on 13th February 2011 but the stock register showed 15 liters which was corrected to 3529 liters on instructions of the respondent no.3; (ii) during physical inspection 97 Liters of kerosene oil were found short while petitioner had given explanation for 3432 Liters of kerosene oil. He had sold 42 Liters of kerosene oil in between; (iii) petitioner had changed the location of his shop from one place to another and (iv) BPL cards of certain consumers were kept with him. The display board of the BPL/Antyodya beneficiaries were not found affixed in front of the shop. Petitioner furnished his explanation on 30th November 2011 vide Annexure-3. The respondent no.3, on being dissatisfied, passed the order dated 8th April 2011 (Annexure-5) canceling his licence. Petitioner approached the appellate authority after obtaining liberty from this Court in W.P.(C) No.3381 of 2011. The appellate authority has also rejected his appeal and confirmed the cancellation of his PDS licence by the impugned order at Annexure-6 dated 22nd April 2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no allegations of black-marketing against the petitioner. Petitioner has furnished satisfactory explanation on all counts alleged in the charges. No inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner which is the basis of the show-cause notice. In absence thereof petitioner has been prejudiced from answering the basis, if any of the charges. He has categorically stated that he had not kept any BPL card of any consumer nor are there any complaints of non-delivery of PDS items to any such consumers. The appellate authority, after having considered the explanation of the petitioner, however, has upheld the cancellation of the licence which is wholly disproportionate to any such irregularities alleged. Petitioner has been operating the fair price shop since 1986. Therefore, some consideration should have been accorded to the case of the petitioner also on sympathetic ground. 4. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order and relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit. Petitioner has been operating the fair price shop since 1986. Therefore, some consideration should have been accorded to the case of the petitioner also on sympathetic ground. 4. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order and relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit. He submits that due procedure of law has been followed. Specific charges have been issued by way of show-cause upon the petitioner and after consideration of his reply, which was unsatisfactory, the order impugned has been passed. The allegations have been found established. Therefore, the appellate authority has also not found any infirmity in the order of cancellation nor any violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner has, therefore, no ground to seek interference in the matter. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the relevant materials including the impugned order. 6. There are 3-4 allegations against the petitioner as is evident from the show-cause notice. Though there is allegation relating to shortage of 97 liters of kerosene oil, but there are no charges of black-marketing or complaint by any consumer alleging non-delivery of kerosene oil to him, rather the Sub-Divisional Officer has found stock of 3432 liters of kerosene oil in the PDS shop of the petitioner. On the other hand, petitioner categorically stated in his show-cause and also before the appellate authority that despite two representations made for seeking permission to shift the shop from the present location to another adjacent place, since no decision was taken on the application, petitioner had simply shifted his premises to a place which was about 100 meters from the present shop. This explanation of the petitioner has also been accepted by the appellate authority. Petitioner has also furnished his explanation for not displaying the BPL/APL beneficiaries list in front of the shop on the ground that there are apprehension of the same being damaged by the mischievous elements. These allegations, however, have not been accepted by the respondents treating them to be irregularities in the maintenance of the fair price shop. No allegation of black-marketing or complaint in non-delivery of PDS items as per schedule has been found against the petitioner. The respondents have also not substantiated the allegations relating to holding of BPL/APL cards of the consumers with the petitioner as no instances have been evidenced. 7. No allegation of black-marketing or complaint in non-delivery of PDS items as per schedule has been found against the petitioner. The respondents have also not substantiated the allegations relating to holding of BPL/APL cards of the consumers with the petitioner as no instances have been evidenced. 7. In totality, it appears that there might be some irregularities in the maintenance of PDS shop, but grave allegation of black-marketing or non-delivery of PDS items at the fair price have not been found to be established. In such circumstances, the cancellation of the license itself, which was being operated since 1986 by the petitioner, appears to be rather harsh and disproportionate. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the appellate authority would re-consider the matter in that light, so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the appellate authority to accord reconsideration on this aspect of the matter within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In case the appellate authority is inclined to reconsider the quantum of punishment, the impugned order shall not come into the way. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.