BISWANATH AGARWALA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1994-8-39
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 25,1994

BISWANATH AGARWALA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAHABIR PRASAD SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [DISTINGUESED]
MD ZAZMUL AHASEN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [DISTINGUESED (DISTING.) 6]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The learned Advocate for the respondents appeared to-day and prayed for leave to file the Affidavit-in-Opposition at this stage, belated though and also prayed for addressing the court. The affidavit-in-opposition is accepted and the learned Advocate for the respondents is permitted to make submissions. The learned Advocate for the petitioner was heard on an earlier date.
(2.)After hearing the submissions of the Ld. Advocate for the respondents, the judgment is passed.
(3.)The petitioner was granted licence by the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengali to act as agent for distributing/ dealing in Kerosene Oil. He has been carrying on business as such agent since 1963. He has moved this writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order conveyed by the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal under his Memo No. CG/K. Oil/Agt/ Ramp/2/66/1700 dated 29-7-93 by which the said Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, purportingly in exercise of the power conferred upon him under para 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 placed the licence of the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect for violation of condition 9 of the licence and provision 5(2) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and the petitioner was called upon to appear before the said Assistant Director of Consumer Goods on a specified date (viz. 17-8-93) for personal hearing with all relevant documents. In the said order, it was mentioned that it had been reported by the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) Rampurhat, Birbhum that the petitioner had violated the office orders Nos. 1990/92 dated 5-10-92, 0292/92 dated 9-10-92, 0433/92 dated 12-11-92 thereby causing disruption of Public Delivery (P.D.) system and it was also reported that the reply of the agent (petitioner) was far from satisfactory and the agent (petitioner) often violated office orders and made supply of S. K. Oil to big dealer in his own interest. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension on the ground that he did not violate any of the conditions of the licence granted to him nor did he violate the provision of 5(2) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 or any order of the appropriate authority. It may be mentioned here that the writ petition was moved on 30-7-93 i.e. on the very next day on which the order of suspension of the licence was passed. The learned Judge taking up the matter on that day passed an interim order to maintain status quo as on 30-7-93 till 4-8-93. On 4-8-93 the learned Judge (Altamas Kabir, J.) however recorded that at that stage the learned Judge was not inclined to pass any interim order as prayed for since, prima facie, it appeared from the order that the petitioner had allegedly violated the office orders referred to there in. The learned Judge rather directed the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal on 17/08/1993 and to make submission before him. The learned Judge also observed that the petitioner would be entitled to take all points taken in the writ petition at the time of hearing of the said matter by the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal. The learned Judge also granted liberty to the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods, to pass final order in the proceedings but not to give effect to the same until further orders of this Court. Subsequently after hearing the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods recorded an order on 20-8-93 holding that the licence of the petitioner/agent was liable to be cancelled. The Assistant Director of Consumer Goods also referred the matter to the Director of Consumer Goods (DCG) for perusal and order and it appears that the DCG also agreed regarding the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. Obviously, such order of cancellation could not be given effect to in view of the order passed by Altamas Kabir, J. on 4-8-93 as stated earlier. On 19-8-93 the petitioner affirmed a supplementary affidavit raising disputes over certain factual aspects of the matter also.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.