The cancellation of a licence based on an order that was not in existence at the time of cancellation is null and void. Violation of principles of natural justice in the cancellation process requires interference by the court.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5596 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed declining to interfere with the order passed by the administrative authority cancelling the public distribution system (in short PDS) licence of the writ petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, read as under:

The PDS licence issued in favour of the writ petitioner has been cancelled on the allegation that the writ petitioner was going to sell ration articles in black-market and on the way it was seized. The authority has instituted FIR on the said allegation being Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 39 of 2010 for alleged commission of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and show cause notice was also issued to the writ petitioner for cancellation of her PDS licence.

The writ petitioner had filed her reply to the said show cause notice denying the allegation but the reply having not been found to be satisfactory, the licence was cancelled.

The writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka being R.M.A. No. 43 of 2010-11 and the appeal stood dismissed upholding the order of the licensing authority. However, in the criminal case which was instituted against the writ petitioner for the alleged offence, he was discharged from the criminal liability. The writ petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4814 of 2011 for quashing of the decision of the authority by which the PDS licence was cancelled on the ground of discharge of the writ petitioner from the criminal liability since according to the writ petitioner, the cancellation of licence was based on same facts and evidences which was the issue of the criminal charge.

The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.10.2012 and the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration that the issue requires consideration, disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for consideration of the fact to be decided within the period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation.

The writ petitioner filed his representation and a proceeding was initiated being R.M.P. No. 07 of 2012-13 which was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2013 on the ground that the acceptance of the final form by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka vide order dated 23.11.2010 was not correct and the same requires an appeal to be filed before the competent court of law inasmuch as the criminal proceeding is different from the proceeding of cancellation of licence as prescribed under Trade Articles Order.

The aforesaid order dated 24.05.2013 was challenged by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5596 of 2013 but the same having been dismissed, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

3. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge by taking the legal issue, i.e., the order impugned does not reflect as to under which provision of law the respondent-authority has cancelled the licence.

It has been contended that the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 was not notified by the State of Jharkhand the day when the power conferred under the said Control Order was exercised by the authority cancelling the licence.

It has been contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer while cancelling the licence has taken into consideration the report of the Block Supply Officer, Ramgarh but the copy of the said report has never been served upon the writ petitioner. It has been contended that if the Sub-Divisional Officer was the licensing authority then how can he base his order on the opinion given by the Block Supply Officer, Ramgarh which was obtained during the pr