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

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Dilip Prasad Jaiswal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 309 of 2017
Decided On : 24-02-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Md. M. I. Khan
For the Respondent: Ms. Varsha Ransisaria, A.C to G.P-V

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Transfer to newly shift PDS shop - Apply for grant of fresh license -

Factual background of case as stated in petitions that petitioner was granted license being license Bihar Trade Articles License Unification Order hereinafter referred to as Order in year for running fair price shop to sell and distribute various commodities such as kerosene oil food grains sugar cooking oil and cloth at price fixed by government - After creation of State of Jharkhand all retail shopkeepers were required to apply for grant of fresh license Order with respect to running fair price shop – Held, In present case respondent have passed impugned orders respectively in quite mechanical way - They have totally ignored reply submitted by petitioner who had elaborately refuted allegations leveled against him rather they have passed impugned orders on totally different allegations for which no notice was served to petitioner - In view of discussions made hereinabove court considered view that impugned order has been passed by respondent in violation of principles of natural justice and respondent functioning as an appellate authority while dismissing petitioner’s appeal vide order also failed to consider said issue and as such both impugned orders passed by respondent respectively cannot be sustained in law and some are hereby quashed and set aside – However concerned respondent shall be at liberty to issue fresh show cause notice to petitioner on allegation of furnishing false residential certificate for obtaining license of fair price shop and thereafter shall pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to petitioner – Petition disposed

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 in Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2014 as well the order as contained in memo No. 485 dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 by which the license granted to the petitioner under Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order, 2001’] has been cancelled.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was granted a license being license No. 18 of 1989 under the Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 1984 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order, 1984’] in the year 1989 for running a fair price shop to sell and distribute various commodities such as kerosene oil, food grains, sugar, cooking oil and cloth at the price fixed by the government. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, all retail shopkeepers were required to apply for grant of fresh license under the Order, 1984 with respect to running fair price shop. The petitioner applied for the same and after due enquiry, he was granted a fresh license having license No. 2 of 2008 dated 14.06.2008. In the month of November, 2012, the villagers of Village-Jageshwar came to know that a recommendation was made to bifurcate some of the BPL card holders related to PDS shop of Village-Jageshwar and to shift them to another PDS shop of Panchayat/Village-Kunda which was about 4 to 6 Kilometers away from the said village. The residents of the said village protested against the said decision by filing representation before the respondent No.4 on 21.11.2012 requesting him that they should be given kerosene oil, food grains and other commodities from the PDS shop of Village-Jageshwar instead of PDS shop of Village-Kunda. However, no heed was paid on the said request of the villagers and the respondent No.3 vide order as contained in Memo No. 565 dated 26.11.2012, issued direction to shift the place of the PDS shop of Khusboo Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Kunda having license No. 36/2012 to Village-Jageshwar for distributing kerosene oil, food grains and other commodities. After shifting the place of the said PDS shop, some of the BPL card holders concerned with the petitioner’s PDS shop of Village-Jageshwar, were transferred to the said newly shifted PDS shop. Thereafter, the petitioner received a copy of the order as contained in memo No. 566 dated 27.11.2012 issued by the respondent No.3 suspending license No. 2 of 2008 standing in the name of the petitioner on certain allegations and he was also served with a show cause notice. The petitioner filed his reply to the said show cause notice on 17.12.2012 before the respondent No.3 denying the allegations levelled against him and stating inter alia that he had submitted Demand Draft No. 971817 dated 15.10.2012 of Rs.2,251/- for lifting rice for the month of November, 2012, but the same was not supplied to him. However, after lapse of about ten months, the license of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent No.3 vide impugned order as contained in memo No. 485 dated 27.08.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6265 of 2013 before this Court against the order dated 27.08.2013 which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 05.05.2014 giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum. The petitioner accordingly preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 being Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2014 which was dismissed by the said respondent vide impugned order 16.05.2016. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order as contained in memo No. 485 dated 27.08.2013 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as a copy of letter No. 07 dated 09.01.2013 issued by the respondent No.4 has never been communicated to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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