Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.
Arun Singh Alias Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Late Jagdish Prasad Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9309 of 2020
Decided On : 31-01-2022
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 – Clauses 23 and 27 – Cancellation of PDS licence – Non-display of list of beneficiaries/ sample food grains cannot warrant cancellation of license of petitioner – Licensing Authority, while rejecting specific plea of petitioner has not properly dealt with defence of petitioner giving reason for distribution of kerosene oil, which was delayed by one month, has come to finding that delay in distribution of kerosene oil by one month shows wrong intention and mindset of petitioner – There is no allegation that petitioner diverted kerosene oil meant to be distributed to beneficiaries – Conclusion upon which Licensing Authority has arrived in impugned order shows non-application of judicial mind – Petitioner has taken a specific plea in his reply to show cause that food grains/kerosene oil were being distributed in presence of the Panchayat Level Vigilance Committee at prescribed rate and quantity and after distribution, entry to this effect has been made by Committee in distribution register – Distribution register and certification given by Panchayat Level Vigilance Committee has not been considered by Licensing Authority at all – Sub-Divisional Officer has failed to get monthly certificate of distribution from fair price shop owner – However, distribution register of food grains, duly certified by Panchayat Level Vigilance Committee, was produced by petitioner along with his reply to show cause, but same was not considered at all by Licensing Authority – Licensing Authority unilaterally rejected affidavits of beneficiaries duly submitted by petitioner in support of his defence – One-sided rejection of affidavits of beneficiaries without giving petitioner an opportunity to examine and/or cross-examine beneficiaries amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and denial of adequate opportunity to petitioner – Onus to prove charges/allegations is upon allegationist, but in present case, respondent authority instead of proving charges levelled against petitioner by cogent reason has in perfunctory manner rejected defence of petitioner without any consideration and by a reasoned order – Impugned order and consequential orders passed by District Magistrate and Commissioner are not tenable and hereby set aside and Sub-Divisional Officer directed to restore PDS License. (Paras 13 to 16, 18 to 23)
JUDGMENT :
The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 30.11.2017, issued under Memo No. 1220 (Annexure-3), by which the Sub Divisional Officer, Sonepur, Saran-the Licensing Authority has cancelled the PDS license of the petitioner for running a fair price shop allotted under the provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2016 Order’) and further for quashing the order, dated 22.10.2018, passed by the District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra, in Supply Appeal No. 80 of 2017, by which the Appellate Authority has upheld the order of the Licensing Authority and also for quashing of the order, dated 11.11.2019, passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, in Supply Revision No. 29 of 2019, whereby the Revisional Authority has rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioner.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ application, is that the petitioner was granted license, vide License No. 86 of 2016, under Jitwarpur Gram Panchayat to run a fair price shop under the Public Distribution System. On 12.10.2017, the fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected by Inspection Team, which led to the issuance of show cause, dated 15.10.2017, issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sonepur, Saran, which was served upon the petitioner containing following irregularities/ allegations, requiring the petitioner to submit his reply within a fortnight.
(ii) Sample food grains were not displayed.
(iii) Weight and Measure License was not displayed
(iv) Kerosene oil meant for the Sept. 2017 was being belatedly distributed in Oct. 02017
(v) Dealer was not distributing the food grains/Kerosene oil each month and every month.
3. The petitioner, in pursuance thereof, submitted reply to the show cause, stating therein that the Weight and measure License was renewed till October, 2018 and further stated that the list of beneficiaries and the sample food grains were on display in his shop. The petitioner further took the defence that due to Chhath festival, the food grain was being distributed first, and then, kerosene oil was distributed and the distribution was being done under the supervision of Panchayat Level Vigilance Committee and stated that he always distributed prescribed quantity of food grains and kerosene oil at the prescribed rate and made entries into distribution register. The petitioner produced the photocopy of the distribution register and also produced statements, on affidavits, of some of the beneficiaries, who denied of any complaints being made against the petitioner during the course of enquiry.
4. On the other hand, the State filed a counter affidavit, stating therein that the fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected by a joint team of Supply Inspector-cum-Block Supply Officer, Dariyapur, Saran and the Executive Officer, Dighwara, Saran and during the course of inspection, certain irregularities were found in the operation of the fair price shop and, accordingly, the Licensing Authority issued a show cause to the petitioner directing him to file reply and a copy of the enquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause. After considering the show cause reply filed by the petitioner as well as other documents and materials available on record, the Licensing Authority, i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer Sonepur, Chapra, cancelled the license of the petitioner to run the fair price shop under the Public Distribution System Scheme by the impugned order, dated 30.11.2017 inasmuch as the petitioner has violated the relevant provisions of the 2016 Order. The appeal, filed by the petitioner against the order of the Licensing Authority cancelling his license, has been dismissed by the District Magistrate, Chapra, Saran, and the revision application filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra. A copy of the enqui
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Licensing Authority to provide reasoned decisions, consider specific pleas and evidence, and adhere to principles of natura....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the licensee of a fair price shop is required to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the license and the provisions of the Control ....
Point of law: A contract wherein the beneficiary is the common man/people of the village who would receive the food-grains at subsidized rates out of taxpayers money. The license is a privilege arisi....
A show-cause notice must contain specific and clear charges against the person to whom it is issued. Vague and general charges render the notice invalid.
The cancellation of a fair-price-shop license is invalid if the authority that conducted the inquiry also decides the merits of the case, violating procedural requirements.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
