AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Sinha, J.—These two writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The Petitioners were granted licences for dealing in wholesale food grains under Bihar Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order.
A notice to show cause was issued by the District Supply Officer purported to be for and on behalf of Additional District Magistrate (Supply) Rohtas to each of the writ Petitioners inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioners normally keep their business premises closed.
The Petitioners filed their show causes. The Additional District Magistrate pat up a note before the Collector that the show causes filed by the Petitioners were unsatisfactory.
On the basis of the said notings itself the Collector had merely approved the proposal of the Additional District Magistrate and directed cancellation of the Petitioner''s Licences. The said order is contained in Annexure-2 to both the writ applications.
The Petitioners thereafter preferred their respective appeals before the Commissioner and the Commissioner dismissed the said appeals holding:
It is however apparent for the (sic) sold as Levy that the business is the being carried on as a Wholesaler is expected to do. A wholesaler is defined "wholesale dealer means a person (including a ring flourmiller/Chakki owner) engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage purpose other than personal consumption of one or more kinds of goodgrains is a quantity exceeding one hundred quintiles but not exceeding one thousands quintiles at any one time, and includes any person doing so on behalf of another as a commission agent or Arhtia or otherwise." It is obvious that the quantity sold on lavy much too small. The extent of business therefore does not justify a wholesalers Licence and as such I do not see any reason to differ with the D.M.''s order.
The impugned order cannot be suspended for two reasons.
Firstly no notice to show cause was issued against the Petitioners by the Licencing Authority. Secondly passing an order of cancellation of a licences the Licensing Authority has to apply his own mind upon taken has consideration the entire materials on records and he has no jurisdiction to cancel the licences by merely approving the proposal of inferior authority. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in (sic) Nath Kejriwal v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 1988 135 PLJR 1100.
The Commissioner also in his impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 did not hold that the Petitioners have violated condition of licences granted to them or any of the provisions of the Food Grain dealer''s Licensing Order, 1967.
For the reasons aforementioned the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
However, evidently, the licences to the Petitioners have lost their force (sic) efflux of time.
It is now well-known that this Court is not issue a futile writ. In this situation, is Writ applications are disposed of with a section that if the Petitioners are carrying less on the basis of the licences which have been granted in their favour, obviously they would be permitted to do so in accordance with law.
However, if the Petitioners have not (granted any licence as yet in terms of Bihar Trade Articles Licences Unification Order, 1984 and any application in relation (sic) is pending the same shall be considered on its own merits by the Licensing Authority without in any way being prejudiced in the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 and 3 to the writ applications.
These applications are disposed of (sic) the aforementioned observations and objections but without any order as to costs.