When suspension is in contemplation of cancellation, no opportunity of hearing is required before passing the suspension order.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter contained in memo no. 106 dated 28.06.2016 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa (respondent no. 3) whereby the PDS licence of the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was granted licence for running a shop under the Public Distribution System bearing Licence No. 09/2006 for distribution of food grains and other items to the ration card holders. A complaint was received against the petitioner whereupon the respondent no. 3 directed to hold enquiry in the matter. The Block Supply Officer, Manjhari submitted enquiry report on 22.04.2016 mainly providing information regarding ration cards made available to the petitioner in January, 2016. On 11.05.2016, the Assistant Manager, State Food Corporation Manjhari also submitted a report to the Circle Officer, Manjhari stating that on physical verification of the stock in the shop of the petitioner, the same was found in order. The Circle Officer, Manjhari vide letter no. 127 dated 14.05.2016, submitted report to the respondent no. 3 and thereafter vide impugned memo no. 106 dated 28.06.2016, the licence of the petitioner was put under suspension with a direction to submit his reply for the proposed cancellation which gives rise to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the copy of the report of the Circle Officer, Manjhari has not been provided to the petitioner, however he came to know that the impugned show cause notice has been issued to him relying on the statements of those persons who are neither the card holders nor have any concern with PDS shop of the petitioner. It is further submitted that immediately after receiving the show cause notice, the petitioner filed the reply denying the allegations levelled against him, however the matter has still been kept pending. It is also submitted that under the provisions of the Jharkhand Trade Article (Unification of Licence) Order, 1984 (in short “the Order, 1984), a licence cannot be placed under suspension for an indefinite period in contemplation of its cancellation. The impugned order of suspension is vitiated on account of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Order, 1984 which otherwise has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 is not vested with unfettered and unbridled powers to place the licence of the petitioner under suspension on unfounded, unsubstantiated and omnibus allegations. The District Supply Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa had circulated a guidelines to locate and earmark those persons who were not entitled to get the benefits of PDS scheme under the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and consequently the petitioner had taken action against some forged beneficiaries. The persons, whose names were enlisted under the dis-entitled/disqualified category, hatched up a conspiracy out of grudge and biasness and made omnibus complaints against the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents while relying on the counter affidavit dated 16.06.2017 filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that the reply to the show cause notice filed by the petitioner was received on 01.07.2016 and the same is being verified by Block Development Officer, Manjhari who has not submitted the report as yet. It is further submitted that a licence can be placed under suspension for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee. Since the petitioner was served memo no. 106/aa dated 28.06.2016 therefore, it cannot be said that the stipulated period of 90 days has elapsed as per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Order, 1984 at the time of filing of this writ petition. Thus, the petitioner ca