Messrs Raghbir Chand Pat Ram vs The Punjab State and Others

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by M/s. Raghbir Chand Pat Ram of Barwala, District Hissar, challenging the legality of the order dated 2nd of July, 1935 passed by the Joint Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, respondent No. 2, cancelling their food-grains licence and forfeiting their security of Rs. 200.

According to the allegations of the petitioner-firm, they had been carrying on business in food-grains in Barwala. The Punjab Food-grains Dealers Licensing Order of 1958 was issued u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the petitioner-firm got a licence under the said Order and continued to carry on business as heretofore. Later on, Punjab State, respondent No. 1 issued the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order of 1954 (hereinafter called the Order of 1964) superseding the earlier Order of 1958. The petitioner-firm obtained a licence under the Order of 1964 and continued to carry on their business. On 29th of August, 1964, the petitioner-firm''s accounts were checked by Shri Gian Chand Trehan, Divisional Organiser, Food and Supplies, (Ambala Division), Karnal. In consequence of this checking, the District Food & Supplies Controller, Hissar, respondent No. 3 made a report to the police for registering a case against the petitioner-firm under the Order of 1964. On 9th of September, 1964, respondent No. 3 also served the petitioner-firm with a show-cause notice regarding the various irregularities discovered as a result of the checking by Shri Gian Chand Trehan. To this the petitioner-firm replied by pointing out that their relevant records were in the office of respondent No. 3 and that being so, no detailed or correct reply could be given without the inspection of the said records. They, therefore, requested that either the records be returned or an opportunity to inspect the same may be granted to them. Respondent No. 3, however, without affording the petitioner-firm any opportunity of giving a detailed reply or tendering an explanation to the show-cause notice, found the same unsatisfactory and passed an order on 23rd September, 1964, cancelling their licence and forfeiting the full security of 200 deposited by them This order was passed by him under clauses 8 and 9 of the Order of 1964. Thereafter the petitioner-firm filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 and the same was dismissed by the impugned order. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 30th of September, 1965.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this writ petition should succeed on the short ground that no reasonable opportunity, as contemplated by the Order of 1964, was afforded by the petitioner-firm before cancelling their licence and forfeiting their security. It is common ground that a dealer''s licence is cancelled under clause 8 and his security is forfeited under clause 9 of the Order of 1964. In both these clauses, it has been clearly mentioned that no order shall be made under them, unless the licensee had been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation of the licence or forfeiture of his security. It has been the case of the petitioner-firm from the very beginning after the show cause notice had been issued to them that they cannot give a proper reply to the various charges without inspecting their record. This is what was stated by them in reply to the show-cause notice-

It is impossible for us to give a detailed and correct reply without inspecting our record which is in your office. All the relevant papers were submitted in your office long back and since then no opportunity has been afforded to us to inspect the records. You will kindly realise that no proper reply can be given till the inspection of the relevant record is allowed and correct and proper reply can only be given when either the papers are returned or an opportunity for inspecting the records is afforded.

Without giving any reply to this letter, the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 3 It is admitted by the respondents in their return that the petitioner-firm''s relevant record was in the office of respondent No. 3. It is also undisputed that this record was neither returned to the petitioner-firm nor were they given any opportunity to inspect the same. That being so, I am of the opinion that it was not possible for them to give a reply to the various allegations made against them. No reasonable opportunity, as envisaged in clauses 8 and 9 of the Order of 1964, was thus afforded to the petitioner-firm before passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is accepted and orders dated 23rd September, 1964, and 2nd July, 1965 passed by respondents Nos. 3 and 2 respectively are quashed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

It may be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm also submitted that under clause 11 of the order of 1964, respondent No. 3 or any other officer of the department was not legally competent or authorised to take away any books, accounts or other documents: they could only, under clause 11 (c) of the Order of 1964 take or cause to be taken extracts from or copies of any documents. Counsel for the respondents had nothing much to urge against this objection, but it is needless to determine the same as I am accepting the writ petition on the other ground mentioned above.