IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to principles of natural justice and a thorough inquiry process are essential in administrative decisions regarding the cancellation of licenses.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate representing the State. The order/judgment of this Court dated 07.04.2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWJC 8159 of 2020, whereby the challenge of the writ petitioner against the cancellation of his license for running a fair price shop vide no. 68/2018 under the provision of Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 has not found favour, leading to the above appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition.

2. The Learned Advocate representing the writ petitioner-appellant herein while questioning the orders/judgment of the learned Single Judge has submitted that from the record it would be manifest that the writ petitioner has been allowed only three days time to file reply to the show cause notice and thus, he has been denied sufficient opportunity to defend his case. That apart the writ petitioner was also denied his right of hearing before passing the impugned order of cancellation of license, for running a fair price shop and for the said reason, the impugned action of the respondents required interference, but the learned Single Judge failed to consider the same and rejected the contention of the petitioner.

3. It was also argued before us that the respondent authority has failed to show any violation by the writ petitioner of any terms of license or any provision under the control order or the Act which could have attracted the power of cancellation of license.

4. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State referring to the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that each of the contention of the petitioner has been explicitly dealt with while dismissing the writ petition.

5. The Government Advocate further drew the attention of this Court to the fact that besides the aforesaid facts there is a delay of three hundred thirty eight days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal and no plausible reason except the plea of Covid-19 pandemic has been assigned.

6. Having heard the rival submissions and careful consideration of the order/judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Court finds that on complaints received by the licensing authority, an enquiry was conducted surfacing irregularities and corrupt practices against the petitioner, who was involved in the Public Distribution System of essential foodgrains, while the entire nation was facing the wrath and shock of Covid-19 pandemic.

7. The enquiry report which is the part of the show cause notice reflects that the beneficiaries who were interrogated, disclosed that the petitioner was not supplying the foodgrains and many of them had not received the same for certain period. Some of the beneficiaries also made allegation that the writ petitioner was found to indulge in corrupt practice of charging more amount for supply of kerosene oil and other articles than the fixed amount.

8. The enquiry report led to issuance of show cause notice, asking the writ petitioner to submit his reply within three days, which was duly replied to by the writ petitioner. At no point of time the petitioner prayed for any additional time to file a proper and adequate reply nor does the show cause reply reflects any such prayer.

9. All the more, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the show cause reply runs into fifty-two pages, containing various enclosures, dealt with point wise charges as contained in show cause notice. The show cause notice and the explanation/reply of the petitioner is produced as Annexure 2 and 3 to the writ petition. In such premise, the writ petitioner-appellant shall not be allowed to take the plea of prejudice caused to him, for reason only of insufficient time to reply or make a defence.

10. The learned Single Judge while negativing the prayer of the writ petitioner, has also found that the impugned order of cancellation of license for running a fair price shop, is based on the