Back
High Court Of Calcutta
GHOSH
JAGADISH LAL GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF RATIONING - Respondent
Matter 214 Of 1972
Decided On : 04/25/1975
RATIONING - SUSPENSION OF APPOINTMENT - WEST BENGAL RATIONING ORDER, 1964 - PARAGRAPH 3(5) - PROVISO - VALIDITY - DELEGATION OF POWER - DIRECTOR OF RATIONING - POWER TO SUSPEND - VALIDITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES - APPLICABILITY - CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING SUSPENSION - EXISTENCE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND STATE - MASTER AND SERVANT - NOT APPLICABLE - DISCRIMINATORY EXERCISE OF POWER - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - NOT VIOLATED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an appointed retailer of rationed articles, challenged the order suspending his appointment and delinking ration cards from his shop. The suspension was based on a complaint of selling 'suji' at a higher price than the controlled rate and discrepancies found in the stock verification. The petitioner contended that the suspension order was illegal as it violated the principles of natural justice, the proviso to sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964, was invalid, and the delegation of power to the Director of Rationing was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order was valid and the suspension of the petitioner's appointment was justified. The court found that the Director of Rationing had the power to suspend the petitioner's appointment under the proviso to sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964, and that the delegation of power to the Director was valid. The court also held that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause before the final order was passed.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension order was illegal for violating the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the proviso to sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964, was invalid? 3. Whether the delegation of power to the Director of Rationing was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suspension order was not illegal as the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause before the final order was passed. The court observed that the power to suspend an appointment without hearing under the circumstances mentioned in the proviso to sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of the said order was introduced by way of amendment of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 in 1969 by inserting the proviso. Thus, it is clear that the intention of the Legislative Authority in inserting the proviso was that the power of suspension could be exercised under the circumstances mentioned in the proviso without hearing the party concerned. 2. The court held that the proviso to sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964, was not invalid. The court observed that the power in the said order has been conferred upon the Director of Rationing a high and responsible officer who is expected to discharge his duties in a responsible manner. Moreover any order passed by such officer is subject to the control of the State Government. In the premises abuse of powers by such high ranking and responsible officers should not and cannot be assumed and moreover, if such power is abused, it is liable to be corrected by the State Government in review or revision. 3. The court held that the delegation of power to the Director of Rationing was not excessive. The court observed that the power of delegation conferred by sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 22 of the said order cannot be said to be tainted with the vice of illegality.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the suspension order.
( 1 ) BY this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to have an order dated 26th May, 1972 suspending the appointment of the petitioner as an Appointed Retailer in respect of the Area Rationing Shop No. 2805 in Hare Street Sub Area, Central Zone under the Rationing Officer at Bowbazar cancelled and/or rescinded. The petitioner's shop is situated at room No. 2 at No. 8/2, Hastings Street, Calcutta. The petitioner was appointed as a Retailed Dealer and/or Retailer in ration to sell rationed articles including rice, wheat etc. in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. The facts culminating in the making of the application as stated by the petitioner in the petition are set out here-under.
( 2 ) A complaint was lodged in the Hare Street Police Station by one Shivaji Das Gupta, a resident of No. 36. Aianta Road, Calcutta-32 that the employees of the petitioner had sold one kg suji to the said Shivaji Das Gupta at rupee 1. 30 p. The petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid complaint was put under arrest and was kept detained in the police custody. The petitioner was released on bail by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the following day. On 23rd May. 1972 a physical verification of the stock in the ration shop of the petitioner was made and the stock book and other books of the petitioner were seized and taken away by the Police.
( 3 ) BY a letter dated 26th May, 1972, written by the Director of Rationing. West Bengal to the petitioner the petitioner was asked to show cause to Shri S. K. Chandra, W. B. C. S. , S. O. Intial Area--I who was appointed an Enquiring Officer within 7 (seven) days from the receipt of the said notice as to why the appointment of the petitioner as an appointed retailer should not be revoked under sub-paragraph 5 of Paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order 1964 on the grounds mentioned in the said notice dated 26th May, 1972. The said grounds were stated to be (1) the case instituted against the petitioner and his employees for selling suji at Re. 1. 30 p. per kg. instead of Re. 1. 14 p. to one Shivaji Das Gupta and (2) discrepancies found in the stock of the petitioner's ration shop when physical verification was made on 23rd May, 1972. The particulars of the discrepancies in the stock were enclosed to the said notice.
( 4 ) THE impugned order dated 26th May, 1972 mentioned hereinabove passed by the Director of Rationing West Bengal suspended the appointment of the petitioner as appointed retailed dealer in respect of A. R. Shop No. 2805 with immediate effect and the Rationing Officer of Bowbazar was requested to delink all cards from the A. R. Shop No. 2805 and to re-link them to other neighbouring shops. On 21st May, 1972, 2885 ration cards meant for adults and 85 ration cards meant for children were linked with the petitioner's A. R. Shop No. 2805. "suji" at the relevant time was de-rationed and was no longer a rationed article with effect from 6th September, 1971. Thus, in any event, sale of 'suji' at the said price i. e. Re. 1. 30 p. could not be in violation of any of the provisions of West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 or of any regulations framed thereunder. The said complaint according to the petitioner was engineered and made on account of the petitioner's refusal to accept the request by the youths of the locality to pay subscription at an exorbitant rate.
( 5 ) MR. K. P. Sinha, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of suspension amounted to infliction of penalty even prior to holding of the enquiry or arriving at the finding that the petitioner was guilty of any offence within the meaning of West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. Mr. Sinha submitted that the impugned order contravened the provisions of the natural justice and further was bad in view of the fact that the petitioner's means of subsistence was taken away by the impugned order of suspension and de-li
AI
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
