SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Pat) 208

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Bishwanath Kejriwal - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Bihar & another - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3902 of 1982
Decided On : 6.5.1988

Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioner: Mr. N.K. Agrawal
For the State : M/s D.N. Singh, and U.G. Prasad

Headnote:

Licence Cancellation - Rice Milling Case - The court quashed the order cancelling the petitioner's licence under the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958, as it found that the Sub-divisional Officer did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner's licence was sought to be cancelled on a ground for which no notice was issued to him.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's licence under the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958 was cancelled by the Sub-divisional Officer for allegedly procuring paddy without obtaining permission and for not submitting any return in respect of the mill.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Sub-divisional Officer did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner's licence was sought to be cancelled on a ground for which no notice was issued to him. The court quashed the impugned order cancelling the licence.

Issues: Cancellation of licence without proper notice and grounds, failure to apply mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The cancellation of the petitioner's licence without proper notice and on a ground for which no notice was issued was held impermissible in law. The Sub-divisional Officer's failure to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case led to the quashing of the impugned order.

Final Decision: The impugned order cancelling the petitioner's licence was quashed by the court.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.4.1982 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda in Rice Milling Case No. 85 of 1978 whereby and where under the said authority cancelled the licence of the petitioner granted to him under Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958. The said order is contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

2. From a perusal of the aforementioned order it appears that the petitioner was given notice that he had been collecting paddy without obtaining permission under clause 9 (2) of Government Order of 1981-82 and as such he was directed to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for commission of an offence under the Essential Commodities Act and as to why his licence should not be cancelled.

3. Upon perusal of the show cause submitted by the petitioner, it occurred to the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda that the petitioner has not yet filed any return in respect of the mill. The said licence was cancelled on the ground that there are irregularities therein.

4. It appears that the aforementioned note was given by some body, whose designation is not mentioned in Annexure 3. The Sub-divisional Officer upon the said note has appended a note "YATHA PRASTUAWIT" meaning there by 'as proposed'.

5. From a perusal of the said order, it is evident that the Subdivisions Officer did not apply his mind at all to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Further, even from the note it is evident that the petitioners licence was sought to be cancelled as he had not submitted any return in respect of the mill in question. It appears that no notice wag issued to him therefor. In my opinion, it is not permissible in law.

6. In view of the fact that the petitioner was merely directed to show cause as to why his licence shall not be cancelled for allegedly procuring paddy without obtaining permission in respect thereof; his licence should not have been cancelled on any other ground for which no notice whatsoever was issued to him.

7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order as contained in Annexure, 3 to the writ petition is quashed but without any order as to costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top