Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 588 (CAL)

Mihir Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2020-08-26

SHAMPA SARKAR

body2020
ORDER : Shampa Sarkar, J. 1. Affidavit of service is taken upon record. 2. In view of the urgency, the matter is taken up virtually. The application being C.A.N. 3773 of 2020 is disposed of. 3. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer, whose license to operate was suspended by an order dated May 29, 2020 issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies and Ex-Officio Assistant Director, Kandi, Murshidabad. 4. It appears that the suspension order was sent on the basis of an enquiry report prepared by the Block Development Officer of Burwan block dated May 21, 2020. 5. Mr. Saha Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the licence could be suspended as an interim measure during the pendency of a hearing with regard to allegations made by the respondents. According to Mr. Saha Roy, at the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice and also at the stage of hearing, the petitioner's licence was not suspended. After conclusion of the hearing, the sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies requested the Block Development Officer, Burwan Block, Murshidabad filed a report with regard to discrepancy and irregularity regarding the fair price shop and distribution of the commodities by the petitioner. This could not be done behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of such a report, the final punishment by way of suspension could not have been imposed. 6. Mr. Susovan Sengupta, learned Senior Government Advocate submits that although not happily worded the order of suspension was an interim measure but the same would not be treated as a final punishment. 7. The argument of Mr. Sengupta cannot be accepted as the same is contrary to the provision of Clause 24 of the Control Order. 8. I have heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and having considered the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, specially Clause 24 thereof, I find that suspension till the disposal of any proceeding initiated against a fair price shop dealer can be imposed in case of contravention and discrepancy, etc. However, after giving an opportunity of being heard, the licence may be terminated or the volume of business can be reduced as a punishment, if contravention or irregularities are proved. In this case, surprisingly hearing was concluded. However, after giving an opportunity of being heard, the licence may be terminated or the volume of business can be reduced as a punishment, if contravention or irregularities are proved. In this case, surprisingly hearing was concluded. Thereafter the authorities considered the report of the Block Development Officer and relying on the same, suspended the licence of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to deal with the report of the Block Development Officer. It also appears that the order of suspension has been issued without any period prescribed. Such an order, in my view, contravenes the provision of Clause 24 of the Control Order. However, the authorities are always at liberty to suspend a fair price shop dealer if contravention is found during pendency of the proceeding but the same has to be in terms of Clause 24 of the Control Order. 9. Under such circumstances, the order dated May 29, 2020 is set aside and quashed. The petitioner's licence could at best have been cancelled as an interim measure, but never as a final punishment, as has been done in this case. The order of suspension has also not mentioned the time limit although the Control Order provides that suspension can be done till the disposal of hearing and thereafter a final punishment either by way of contravention or reduction of the volume of business can be imposed. 10. This writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The copy of the report of the Block Development Officer shall be handed over to the petitioner within two weeks. (b) The petitioner will file the reply within two weeks thereafter. (c) A hearing shall be given to the petitioner by the appropriate authority on the entire issue afresh and concluded within six weeks. (d) In the meantime, the authorities are at liberty to exercise their power under Clause 24(1) of the Control Order with regard to suspension of licence as an interim measure pending the disposal of the hearing as directed by this Court. (e) Upon conclusion of the hearing an order should be passed and communicated within two weeks after conclusion of the hearing to the petitioner. If the authorities decide not to suspend the petitioner in the interim period before the hearing is done, the petitioner will be given the allotment. 11. There will be no order as to cost. 12. (e) Upon conclusion of the hearing an order should be passed and communicated within two weeks after conclusion of the hearing to the petitioner. If the authorities decide not to suspend the petitioner in the interim period before the hearing is done, the petitioner will be given the allotment. 11. There will be no order as to cost. 12. All parties are to act on the communication of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.