IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the licensing authority must clearly mention the proposed action of cancellation of license in a notice under Clause 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order-2016, as failure to do so renders the notice invalid.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

The Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BTPDS Control Order-2016’) has been issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Clause-3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and with reference to the various provisions under the Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2015 (TPDS Control Order, 2015), issued by the Government of India. There is no gainsaying that the BTPDS Control Order-2016 is statutory in character, which regulates ration cards, licensing and regulation of fair price shops, operation of fair price shops, monitoring, transparency and accountability, penalty, powers of search and seizure, and appeal, other related matters.

2. Clause 25 of the said BTPDS Control Order-2016 specifies the circumstances in which an action is to be taken in the light of an order passed by the Supreme Court. For the benefit of quick reference, Clause-25 of the said BTPDS Control Order-2016 is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

“25. Action against a licensee. -(i) Given the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Writ 196/01, action shall be taken against the licensees in the following circumstances:-

Licensees who,

(a) do not keep their shops open throughout the month during the stipulated period;

(b) fail to provide food grains to BPL families strictly at BPL rates and no higher;

(c) keep the ration cards of BPL household with them;

(d) make false entries in the BPL ration cards;

(e) engage in black marketing or siphoning away food grains to the open market and handover such ration shops to such other person/organizations shall make themselves liable for cancellation of their license. The concerned authorities will not show any laxity on the subject.”

3. Clause-27 of the BTPDS Control Order-2016, stipulates cancellation of a licence of a Fair Price Shop, in case a licencee violates any provision of the said Order or fails to comply with the duties and responsibilities assigned to the licensee. The said Clause-27 of the BTPDS Control Order-2016 reads as follows:-

“27. Cancellation of License. -(i) If a licensee violates any provision of this Order or fails to comply duties and responsibilities assigned to the license, his license shall be cancelled by the licensing authority by a written order, and such a cancellation of license shall not affect other actions initiated/initiable under the Essential Commodity Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955).

(ii) No order of cancellation of a license shall be made until the licensee has been given sufficient opportunity to state his case against the proposal of cancellation of his license.

(iii) The cases of violation of the provisions of this Order shall be disposed of within two months, as far as possible, after coming in cognizance as for. (underscored for emphasis)

4. It is manifest on a plain reading of Sub-clause (ii) of Clause-27 of the BTPDS Control Order-2016 that giving of sufficient opportunity to a licensee to state his case against the proposal for cancellation of his licence is an essential statutory requirement. Whether it is mandatory for licensing authority to state clearly in its notice under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause-27 of the BTPDS Control Order, 2016 that it is proposed to cancel the licence, is the sole question which has arisen before this Full Bench to answer, on a reference having been made by a Division Bench of this Court.

5. It is worthwhile mentioning that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bachan Ram Vs the State of Bihar reported in 2018 (4) PLJR 516, has held that in no uncertain terms the words, ‘proposal for cancellation’ appearing under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause-27 clearly contemplates that when the show cause notice is issued to the licensee, the licensee should be categorically informed that there is a proposal for cancellation of a licence. Paragraph no. 6 of the said decision in the case of Ram Bachan Ram (supra) read as un