Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated without valid grounds that exist at the time of issuing the directive.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a wholesale distributor holding an AWD license under Essential Commodities Act . It is stated that, the license granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the 1st respondent by Ext.P1 order dated 17.03.2008. The petitioner therefore preferred an appeal before the 8th respondent who, after hearing the petitioner, by Ext.P2 order dated 07.11.2008, allowed the appeal by way of remand. Consequent to the remand, the 1st respondent was to pass fresh orders with regard to the cancellation of the license of the petitioner. It is stated that, in the meanwhile, without noticing the fact of passing of Ext.P2 order dated 07.11.2008, the 2nd respondent alerted the 7th respondent of the fact of suspension of license of the petitioner by the 1st respondent, and recommended the initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner in connection with the said cancellation of license. Ext.P6 order dated 05.12.2008 was thereafter passed by the 7th respondent directing the authorities to initiate criminal action against the petitioner in connection with the irregularities noticed which led to the cancellation of the license granted to him. In the writ petition, Ext. P6 order and Exts.P4, P5 and P5(a) recommendation letters which lead to the issuance of Ext.P6 order are impugned, inter alia, on the ground that, the very basis for initiation of criminal action against the petitioner did not exist with the passing of Ext.P2 order by the 8th respondent, allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the 1st respondent cancelling his license.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note that pursuant to Ext.P2 order of remand by the 8th respondent, the 1st respondent passed a fresh order dated 10.03.2009 cancelling the license issued to the petitioner. In a further appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order, the order of the 1st respondent was confirmed by the 8th respondent. A further revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of the 8th respondent was also dismissed by the Government. It is stated that against the said orders passed by the 1st respondent, 8th respondent and the Government, the petitioner has preferred W.P. (C).No.30909 of 2012, which has been admitted by this Court. It is also stated that, in the said writ petition, there is a stay granted to the petitioner against further proceedings pursuant to the orders impugned in the said writ petition. In the present writ petition, this Court concerned with Ext.P6 order passed by the 7th respondent, which directs criminal action to be taken against the petitioner. It is seen that the said order was passed without noticing the fact that the original order passed by the 1st respondent had been set aside in an appeal before the 8th respondent, who had then remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent for fresh adjudication. It is apparent, therefore, that the basis for the initiation of criminal action against the petitioner did not exist at the time when the said order was passed by the 7th respondent. In my view, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner must be based on material that existed as on the date of forming an opinion to proceed against the petitioner for criminal action and, inasmuch as that did not exist on the date when Ext.P6 order was passed, the same deserves to be quashed and I do so. Thus the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P6 order and P4, P5 and P5(a) communications that led to the passing of Ext.P6 is allowed by quashing the said communications and order. I make it clear, however, that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the respondents initiating any criminal action against the petitioner in the event of W.P.(C).No.30909 of 2012 being decided against the petition