Manoj Prasad Chaudhary vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Heard counsel for the appellant and Mr. Modi, counsel for the respondents.

The appellant was a licensee of a fair price shop. His shop was inspected. It was found that his books of account were not up-to-date. It was also found that there was shortage in sugar stock in the shop premises. Some of the customers linked to that shop also complained that the appellant was over charging. The authority concerned, therefore, issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled for violation of the conditions of the licence. The appellant submitted an explanation. The licensing authority found that the facts established, clearly showed that the conditions of the licence were violated. Thus he cancelled the licence.

The appellant filed an appeal. The appellate authority reconsidered the question arising for decision. The appellate authority found that the books of accounts were not properly maintained and there was shortage in sugar stock in the premises. The appellant took the only stand that there was no shortage in the stock of sugar, but that claim could not be accepted in the light of the facts found during the inspection, which admittedly took place in the presence of the appellant. The appellant also produced affidavits, said to be sworn to by the customers linked to the shop of the appellant, stating that they had not given the earlier statements to the effect that the appellant has over charged. The appellate authority considered the acceptability of those affidavits in the context of the statements earlier given by those customers. It came to the conclusion that those affidavits could not be accepted in the circumstances obtaining. The appellate authority found no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the original authority that the appellant was over charging the customers. The appellate authority affirmed the decision of the licensing authority.

The appellant challenged the said decision of the appellate authority in W.P. (C) No. 2985 of 2002 before this Court. The learned Single Judge noticed that the main ground urged was that the order of the licensing authority was a routine one and adequate materials were not available to sustain the cancellation of the licence. The learned Single Judge found that on the facts of this case it could not be held that there was no proper and regular inquiry. The learned Judge also found that the conclusion arrived at by the original authority and affirmed by the appellate authority was proper. The learned Single Judge found that no procedural irregularity was committed by the original authority or by the appellate authority, in passing the respective orders. The learned Single Judge found that the appellate authority has reappraised the entire materials on record and had given an opportunity to the appellant of being heard and recorded findings of fact based on relevant materials and came to the conclusion that there was no justification in interfering with the impugned order in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus the wit petition was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the books were seized immediately after the shop was opened on 20.5.1999 and while the appellant had made some entries in the stock registers and it was open to the appellant to complete the books of the account of the previous day before the sale actually commenced on 20.5.1999. In our view, this argument does not carry the appellant far in this case. What was found was that, going by the sale records of sugar of the previous day maintained by the appellant, the stock of sugar should have been 1.88 quintals, but, as a matter of fact, what remained in the stock was only 0.88 quintal, thus showing a shortage of one quintal of sugar. It may be noted here that at the same inspection the authority found that there was no shortage of stock either in wheat or in rice. The point urged on behalf of the appellant is that if there was shortage of sugar, the authority concerned should have seized the balance sugar. There was no such compulsion to seize. That argument does not enable us to interfere with the findings arrived at by the original authority and the appellate authority and affirmed by the learned Single Judge that there was shortage of stock of sugar in the premises. Thus the finding that the condition of the licence has been violated by the appellant stands established.

Equally, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the authorities in holding that the appellant had over charged seven of his customers, who gave statements in detail of the overcharging indulged in by the appellant. What the appellant has tried to do is to produce later affidavits said to be of those persons, trying to make out that they had not made any complaint of over charging and that then signatures or thumb impressions were taken on blank papers, which were subsequently used for the statements. The appellate authority considered these affidavits along with the earlier statements and in the circumstances obtaining in the case, came to the conclusion that these affidavits could not be accepted so as to get over the effect of the statements originally given by these customers. We cannot say that the appellate authority was not justified in its stand, on the facts, the learned Single Judge did not find it proper to interfere in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are satisfied that interference by us cannot be justified.

We find, that this was a case in which the appellant was kept under watch. There were three inspections of his premises. Thereafter, a show cause notice was given to him. He was given an opportunity to explain. He was also given an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the licensing authority cancelled the licence finding his explanation not satisfactory and finding that he has violated the conditions of the licence. The appellate authority after taking into consideration all these aspects and after hearing the appellant came to the conclusion that the original authority was justified in cancelling the licence. Thus we find that procedural fairness has been fully adhered to by the authorities and they recorded the findings based on relevant materials, that the appellant has violated the conditions of the licence and in view of that cancelled the licence.

We see no reason to interfere. We dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.