SITA RAM PAHARIYA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Additional Advocate

General assisted by Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.514 dated 04.11.2011 passed by Sub-Divisional

Officer, Pakur (Respondent No.4) whereby and whereunder the Public Distribution Licence of the petitioner i.e. License No.01/88 has been

cancelled. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of cancellation has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner before passing the said order of cancellation and the aforesaid order according to the petitioner is in clear violation of the Clause 11(2) of the

Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that the aforesaid order of cancellation has been

passed in the light of Letter No.689/Supply dated 11.10.2011 of the District Supply Officer, Pakur as well as the Letter No.2717 /Ranchi dated

12.09.2011 of the Principal Secretary, Food Public Distribution and Consumer Development, Govt. of Jharkhand.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having license for public distribution being license no.01/88. A show-cause was issued to the

petitioner as contained in Memo No.81 dated 09.04.2010 whereby allegation of blackmarketing was levelled against the petitioner and a criminal case

was also instituted against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid show-cause notice dated

09.04.2010, the petitioner filed his show-cause reply as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner had denied the

allegations.Â

The petitioner submits that thereafter, no final order in connection with cancellation of license of the petitioner was passed however, vide Memo

No.419 dated 16.08.2011 the suspension of the license of the petitioner was revoked on account of expiry of statutory period of 90 days under Section

11(2) of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984.Â

Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents and ultimately at the behest of the higher

authorities i.e. aforesaid letters dated 11.10.2011 and 12.09.2011Â an order, as contained in Memo No.514 dated 04.11.2011, was passed by the

SubDivisional Officer, Pakur whereby the license of the petitioner has been cancelled merely on the ground that one criminal case has been lodged

against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.Â

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing of the impugned order as contained in Memo No.514 dated 04.11.2011, no

opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order is fit to be set-aside having been passed in gross

violation of the principles of natural justice.Â

Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the show-cause notice issued as

contained in Memo No.81 dated 09.04.2010 and the reply filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-5 is an evasive reply. So far as the orders

issued by the higher authorities are concerned, it was only an enquiry being made regarding the final order which might have been passed on the point

of cancellation of license issued to the petitioner and the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed at the behest of the higher authorities.Â

However, the counsel for the respondents could not substantiate that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to passing of

impugned order as contained in Memo No.514 dated 04.11.2011 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Counsel for the respondents also

submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order and therefore, the writ petition may not be entertained.Â

After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition mainly on the ground that the impugned order as

contained in Memo No.514 dated 04.11.2011 has been apparently passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice in as much as no opportunity

of hearing has been granted to the petitioner prior to passing of order as contained in Memo No.514 dated 04.11.2011. It is an admitted fact that

show-cause notice was issued vide Memo No.81 dated 09.04.2010 pursuant to which the petitioner filed a show-cause reply. Thereafter, no final

order was passed on the matter of cancellation of license and suspension of the license of the petitioner was revoked.Â

Considering the fact that an opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioner prior to passing of the order as contained

in Memo No.514 dated 04.11.2011, this Court finds that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ petition has been passed in gross

violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, it is hereby set-aside.Â

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur within a period of 15 days from today alongwith a copy of this order

and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter of cancellation of license of the

petitioner and will pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 15 days thereafter. Â

This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.