SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Gau) 799

Gauhati High Court
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Santanu Medhi - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam & Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 2251 of 2013
Decided On : 11-11-2013

For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Sarma, Mr. D. Das, Mr. A. Hussain, Ms. K.M. Sarma, Mr. K. Choudhury & Mr. M. Beria Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. B. J. Ghosh, GA Advocates.

Headnote:

Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420/409/ 379 - Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 - Orders 14, 15(1) , 15(2) and 18 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 3 - Fair price shop - FIR - Discrepancy or misappropriation of essential commodities - Cancel licence - Apply for Renewal of his fair price shop licence - Seeking the reliefs - Petitioner, he has been operating his fair price shop in conformity with legal requirements, maintaining cordial relation with his consumer - Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Biswanath Chariali (Respondent No.3) alongwith some officials of Food and Civil Supplies Department including respondent No.4, made a sudden visit to fair price shop of the petitioner while he was not present - However, on receipt of information about aforesaid visit petitioner rushed back to his shop - Officials inspected stock and sales book and left thereafter - Petitioner was asked to show cause within 3 days on receipt of said notice as to why legal action should not be taken against him for violation of various provisions of Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 - Responding to said show cause notice petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated denying any such discrepancy or misappropriation of essential commodities - Regarding discrepancy in atta (flour), he stated that because of poor quality consumers did not purchase the said commodity – Held, Licence of petitioner was cancelled on ground that there were violations of Orders Hand 18 by petitioner - It was further stated that record of the stock as reflected in stock book was found inconsistent with stock of commodities - Record further reveals that inspection report dated was submitted by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 which showed some discrepancies in physical stock and stock register of certain commodities such as atta levy sugar etc - Order clearly mandates that no order of cancellation shall be made without giving licensee reasonable opportunity of hearing but also provides that during such proceedings Licensing Authority can suspend licence for a period not exceeding 90 days other words what said provision visualizes is a comprehensive enquiry into allegations brought against licensee before resorting to the drastic power of cancellation during which period the licence can also be suspended - However, even in the absence of a copy of such report, petitioner had submitted his reply - But neither the record nor the impugned order discloses any consideration of said reply - Non-consideration of such reply has vitiated impugned order dated Impugne-d order is also very vague and devoid of any particulars save and except making a general statement of violation of two mentioned pro visions of 1982 Order - Writ petition is allowed

Ujjal Bhutan, J --

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of order dated 4.4.2013 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Biswanath Chariali cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to allow him to operate his fair price shop as earlier.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he was running a fair price shop at Bamgaon, Biswanath Chariali under Licence No.BFS-12/98/FP/27. The fair price shop run by the petitioner on the strength of the aforesaid licence is his only source of livelihood.

3. According to the petitioner, he has been operating his fair price shop in conformity with the legal requirements, maintaining cordial relation with his consumers.

4. On 13.3.2013, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Biswanath Chariali (Respondent No.3) alongwith some officials of Food and Civil Supplies Department, including respondent No.4, made a sudden visit to the fair price shop of the petitioner while he was not present. However, on receipt of information about the aforesaid visit, petitioner rushed back to his shop. The officials inspected the stock and sales book and left thereafter.

5. On 25.3.2013, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3 alleging discrepancies between physical stock and book entries. Petitioner was asked to show cause within 3 days on receipt of the said notice as to why legal action should not be taken against him for violation of various provisions of Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. Responding to the said show cause notice, petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 29.3.2013 denying any such discrepancy or misappropriation of essential commodities. Regarding discrepancy in atta (flour), he stated that because of poor quality, consumers did not purchase the said commodity. To avoid financial loss, such atta was sold to a few consumers for use as fodder for their domestic cattle but it was sold as per the Government regulated price.

6. In the meanwhile, on the very next day of issuing show cause notice i.e., on 26.3.2013, respondent No. 4 lodged first information before Biswanath Chariali Police Station alleging that there was reason to believe that petitioner had misappropriated PDS commodities. Police authorities were requested to take necessary steps as per law. The first information was treated as FIR and on the basis of the same, Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No.69/2013 under Sections 420/409/ 379 IPC was registered. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court by filing anticipatory bail application, which was registered as AB No. 1397/2013. This Court by order dated 9.4.2013 granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

7. In the meanwhile, petitioner deposited the requisite fee for renewal of his fair price shop licence, the receipt of which was duly acknowledged by the office of respondent No.4.

8. However, respondent No.3 issued the impugned order dated 4.4.2013 cancelling the licence issued to the petitioner on the ground of violation of Orders 14 and 18 of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. Though the petitioner requested respondent No.3 to review such order, the same did not receive any response.

9. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as noticed above.

10. Contention of the petitioner is that the impugned cancellation of licence is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is therefore void. The said order was passed very hastily. There was no proper application of mind and the impugned order is also without jurisdiction.

11. Respondent No.3 has filed affidavit through Assistant Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Biswanath Chariali. He has stated that petitioner was a PDS licensee covered under Licence No. BFS-12/98/FP/27. Petitioner received show cause notice on 27.3.2013 and had to submit his reply on or before 30.3.2013 but it was received b












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top