IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

RSA 25 of 2003

Shri Milan Chakraborty,

S/O. Late Upendra Chakraborty,

Resident of Toinani,

P.S. Radhakishorepur, Udaipur,

South Tripura.

……..… Appellant.

- Vs –

1. The State of Tripura,

Represented by –

The District Magistrate & Collector,

South Tripura District,

Udaipur.

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,

Udaipur, South Tripura.

……..… Respondents.

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. DAS

For the Appellant : Ms. S. Deb (Gupta), Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. A. Ghosh, Govt. Advocate.

Date of hearing & : 01.07.2013.

delivery of Judgment

& order

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

This second appeal has been admitted for hearing on

the following substantial question of law:-

Whether the finding of the first appellate court that

the respondent No. 2 acted in good faith and in public

exigency in suspending the retail dealership of the

plaintiff-appellant is based on evidence?

2.

Heard learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb (Gupta) for the

appellant and learned State counsel, Mr. A. Ghosh for the

respondents.

3.

The appellant was appointed as a dealer of Tainani Fair

Price shop in the year 1978. A police case was instituted against

the appellant on 08.06.1997 at R.K. Pur P.S. alleging inter alia

mal-distribution of the essential commodities and the case ended

in charge sheet. During pendency of the police case, by an order

dated 14.08.1997, the dealership of the appellant (accused) was

suspended. The police case was taken up for trial before the

learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), South Tripura, Udaipur

vide Special Case No. 2 (SC/U) of 1997 and the learned Special

Judge by judgment dated 02.04.1998 acquitted the accused from

the charge and set him at liberty.

4.

After acquittal, the appellant made a representation to

respondent No. 2 seeking revocation of the order of suspension of

his

license,

but

the

respondent

took

no

action

on

the

representation. He also issued Notice under Section 80 (1) of CPC,

but received no response. Thereafter, the appellant as plaintiff

instituted Title Suit No. 37 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Udaipur, South Tripura inter alia stating that the

license of the plaintiff as a dealer of Tainani Fair Price Shop was

cancelled illegally without following the procedure prescribed in

Paragraph 3 of the Tripura Foodgrains (Distribution and Control)

Order, 1972 and that the police case was falsely instituted against

him alleging mal-distribution of essential commodities in which he

got an order of acquittal.

The respondent contested the suit inter alia stating

that because of the police case was instituted against him for mal-

distribution

of

essential

commodities,

the

dealership

was

suspended for the valid reason and that after the police case was

instituted, the appellant absconded and therefore, the dealership

was temporarily given to Garjee Lamps to ensure supply of

essential commodities to the card holders. There was no scope to

observe any other formalities at that point of time.

5.

Considering the pleadings of the parties, the trial court

formulated six issues namely:-

i.

Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present

form and nature?

ii.

Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action to file the

present suit?

iii.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any decree that the

order

of

suspension

order

vide

No.

F.

3(9)

SDO/UDP/FP/9/74-78/2793-96 dt. 14.08.97 is illegal,

void and inoperative?

iv.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get perpetual injunction

restraining the defdts from giving effect the impugned

order of suspension dt. 14.8.97?

v.

Whether the plaint