- (1.) A firm by the name of M/s. Kaladevi Trading Firm was granted a licence of a semi wholesale dealer for distribution of kerosene. Pursuant to complaints received against the firm, an inspection was conducted. In the inspection report prepared by the Junior Supply Officer and presented to the Licensing Officer, it was stated that kerosene was not distributed to the retail kerosene license holders of rural areas viz. Badaoni, Basai, Unnav in accordance with orders issued by the concerned office. It was also stated that the firm had distributed kerosene oil in unequal proportions in the months of April, May and June, in contravention to the provisions of Para 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Kerosene Dealers and Licensing Order, 1979 and Clause 4 of the License. These actions amounted to a punishable offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Show cause was issued to the appellant by the District Office to which a reply was filed. The Collector, Datiya, after considering the allegations levelled against the appellant, the reply and records relating to the case, found irregularities in the matter. The Collector passed an order dated 25.6.2002 for the forfeiture of the security deposited under Clause 14 of Madhya Pradesh Kerosene Dealers and Licensing Order, 1979. An order was passed by the Collector on 2.5.2003 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause 10 of the M.P. Kerosene Dealer Licensing Order, 1979, cancelling the Semi Wholesale License held by the appellant. The appeal filed against the order passed by the Collector was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior on 30.6.2003. The revision filed before the Minister concerned was rejected on 17.1.2005. The appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh contending that the revision petition filed by the appellant before the State had been allowed by the Minister on 26.8.2003, but the authorities have overlooked the said order and passed another order on 17.1.2005 dismissing the revision of the appellant. It was the submission of the appellant that the act of overlooking the order dated 26.8.2003 and passing a fresh order, amounts to a review not permissible in law. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the order dated 26.8.2003 was not placed on the record. A writ appeal was filed thereafter, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
(2.) The only point which was canvassed before the Division Bench of the High Court was that an order had earlier been passed in favour of the appellant by the Minister on 26.08.2003. On this issue the Learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the so called order dated 26.08.2003, which was relied upon by the appellant, did not contain the case number; the appellant had admittedly appeared before the Minister which led to the passing of the order dated 17.01.2005 and if there was an order dated 26.08.2003, the appellant would have filed an affidavit deposing to the aforesaid fact.
(3.) The Division Bench of the High Court, in order to satisfy itself, whether an order was passed by the Minister on 26.08.2003 called for an additional affidavit by the State which was filed. The order of the Division Bench indicates that the records were perused by the Court. After perusing the record, the Division Bench observed that the entire process was riddled with irregularities and that the order sheet relating to the so called order dated 26.08.2003 contained interpolations. The Division Bench consequently arrived at the conclusion that the so called order dated 26.08.2003 had never seen the light of the day; it was never processed or endorsed by the Department and, as a matter of fact, it was only on 17.01.2005 that an order was passed in revision by the Minister, rejecting the revision.;