Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 677 (JHR)

Mahesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2018-03-23

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 170 dated 06.02.2016 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner’s P.D.S license being No. 04/2008 has been cancelled. 2. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that initially in the year 2013, he was issued a show cause notice by the respondent No.3 for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the PDS license and the same was also suspended. Subsequently, the said matter was dropped and the petitioner was allowed to run the PDS shop. However, vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2016, the PDS license of the petitioner has cancelled without issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The said unilateral decision taken by the respondent No.3 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that earlier also the Mukhiya of the village had lodged a written complaint against the petitioner alleging that in spite of lifting the food grains, he did not distribute the same to the beneficiaries. The PDS license of the petitioner was suspended and an explanation was called from him vide Memo No. 357 dated 05.08.2013, however, on the basis of the subsequent report of the Block Supply Officer, Chhattarpur, the respondent No.3 released the petitioner’s PDS license from suspension with strict warning to run the PDS shop with full devotion and in terms with the rules and instructions of the government. However, the petitioner repeated the said irregularity and the Block Development Officer as well as the Block Supply Officer, Chhattarpur submitted an enquiry report, which disclosed that though the petitioner lifted the food grains for October, 2015 and November, 2015, yet he did not distribute the food grains for November, 2015 to the beneficiaries. In the said enquiry, the statements of some of the card holders were also recorded. On the basis of the enquiry report, the respondent No.3 decided not to continue the PDS license of the petitioner and accordingly the same was ordered to be cancelled. In the said enquiry, the statements of some of the card holders were also recorded. On the basis of the enquiry report, the respondent No.3 decided not to continue the PDS license of the petitioner and accordingly the same was ordered to be cancelled. It has also been averred that since the petitioner repeated the same irregularity for which he was warned earlier, there was no need to seek explanation or to provide any opportunity of hearing so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice, as the same would have amounted to unnatural extension of opportunity to a person who has been in the habit of violating the government orders. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents available on record. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that since the petitioner repeated the same irregularity for which he was warned earlier, there was no need to seek explanation or to provide any opportunity of hearing so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice, appears to be wholly misconceived. Only because on earlier occasion, the PDS license of the petitioner was suspended by the respondent No.3, the same cannot be treated as a ground for not issuing any show-cause notice or providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before cancelling his PDS license. 5. The observance of the principles of natural justice is not a mere formality. It has been settled over the years that following the principles of natural justice by the administrative/quasi-judicial authorities is sine-qua-non which is treated as a mode of safeguard against any arbitrary decision being taken by the said authorities against any private individual. Otherwise also, in a case where by reasons of an order, any adverse civil consequence is to be faced by a person, the said order is required to be passed after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected person. The stand taken by the respondents to the extent that according to them the petitioner appears to be a habitual violator of law and as such there was no need of affording any opportunity of hearing to him, is liable to be out rightly rejected. The stand taken by the respondents to the extent that according to them the petitioner appears to be a habitual violator of law and as such there was no need of affording any opportunity of hearing to him, is liable to be out rightly rejected. On this score only, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 170 dated 06.02.2016 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 6. The present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.