Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya
RANI SATI KEROSENE SUPPLY COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 250 Of 2004
Decided On : 06/09/2004
Kerosene Control Order - Cancellation of License - Interference by Minister - Due Process - Communication of Order - Limitation for Appeal: 1. The Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal, is the competent authority to cancel an agent's license for misconduct under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. 2. The Minister, Food and Supplies, cannot interfere with the duties of the Director prescribed by the statute and cannot ask the Director to send a file involving an allegation of misconduct of an agent and direct him to retransmit the final order for his approval. 3. The cancellation of a license must be in accordance with the due process of law, and any unauthorized interference by the Minister renders the cancellation illegal. 4. The date of communication of an order of cancellation of license is significant, and if the order is not communicated to the agent within 30 days from the date of passing of the earlier order of suspension, the order of cancellation loses its force, and the earlier order of suspension also becomes ineffective.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an agent of S. K. Oil under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, challenged a suspension-cum-show cause notice and a subsequent order canceling their agency license issued by the Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal. The petitioners contended that the Director lacked the authority to cancel the license and that the order was not communicated within 30 days, rendering it invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Minister, Food and Supplies, had interfered with the duties of the Director of Consumer Goods by asking him to send the file for approval, overstepping his limits. The court also found that the Director had failed to discharge his statutory duty freely and was guided by the direction of the Minister. The court held that the license of the petitioner had been canceled without following the due process of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal, had the authority to cancel the petitioner's license. 2. Whether the Minister, Food and Supplies, could interfere with the duties of the Director. 3. Whether the cancellation of the license was in accordance with the due process of law. 4. Whether the order of cancellation was communicated to the agent within the prescribed time limit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, vests the authority to cancel an agent's license for misconduct with the Director of Consumer Goods. 2. The Minister, Food and Supplies, cannot interfere with the duties of the Director prescribed by the statute, as it is an unauthorized interference. 3. The cancellation of a license must be in accordance with the due process of law, and any unauthorized interference by the Minister renders the cancellation illegal. 4. The date of communication of an order of cancellation of license is significant, and if the order is not communicated to the agent within 30 days from the date of passing of the earlier order of suspension, the order of cancellation loses its force, and the earlier order of suspension also becomes ineffective.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order canceling the petitioner's license and revoked the earlier order of suspension. The court also directed the respondents to immediately restore the supply of kerosene to the petitioner and imposed costs on the Minister concerned and the Director of Consumer Goods personally.
( 2 ) INITIALLY, the grievance of the petitioners was twofold.
( 3 ) FIRST, the Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal, is not vested with the authority to cancel an agency-licence in the District of Purulia and it is for the district Magistrate of the District to take the appropriate decision. Secondly, even if, it is assumed for the sake of argument that the said Director has such power, the purported order dated January 9,2004 having been communicated to the petitioners by fax on January 30, 2004, i. e. beyond 30 days from the issue of order of suspension dated December 10, 2003, was liable to be set aside.
( 4 ) ON February 17, 2004, this matter was moved for the first time after service of the copy of the writ application upon the State respondent. Since pure questions of law were agitated by the petitioners, this Court, to enable ms. Chakraborty, the learned advocate appearing for the State respondents to take instruction in the matter, fixed February 27, 2004, for further hearing with a direction upon Ms. Chakraborty to produce the records.
( 5 ) ON February 27, 2004, Ms. Chakraborty produced records showing that the decision impugned was really faxed to the petitioners on January 30, 2004. Ms. Chakraborty further informed the Court that the hearing, however, had taken place on January 7, 2004, and the order was actually passed on January 9, 2004. On that day, Ms. Chakraborty emphatically asserted before this Court that she had definite instruction that on January 9, 2004, immediately after passing of the order, the officer concerned tendered the order to a representative of the petitioners but he refused, as a result, subsequently the order was sent by fax. Ms. Chakraborty however conceded that such tender and refusal were not reflected from the records of the case. Such allegations of tender and refusal having been disputed by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the respondents were directed to file affidavit asseverating such facts within a fortnight from that date. The petitioners were directed to give affidavit-in-reply within a week thereafter and the matter was directed to be listed after three weeks.
( 6 ) ULTIMATELY, the matter came up for hearing on March 30, 2004, and the learned advocate appearing for the State respondent relied upon the original records.
( 7 ) AT that time, it appeared from page 71 of the records that on December 15, 2003, there was an endorsement to the following effect:"as desired by the Hon'ble MIC, the file be sent to him for favour of his perusal. SD/ illegible 15/12/2003"
( 8 ) IT further appears that below the aforesaid endorsement, following remarks are made in green ink:"pi. re-submits the file along with order of hearing for my approval. SD/illegible 18/12"
( 9 ) MR. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent as the leader of Ms. Chakraborty, after taking instruction from Sri subhas Chandra Roy, Assistant Director, Consumer Goods, who looks after the legal matters, submitted before this Court on that day that the endorsement dated December 15,2003 mentioned above was in the handwriting of Sri Sandip bishnu, Assistant Director, Consumer Goods, Agent Cell.
( 10 ) SRI Subhas Chandra Roy, however, could not definitely tell Mr. Chakraborty whether the endorsements dated "18/12" were made by the minister-in-charge or not. He submitted that further instruction was necessary for as
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
