- (1.) THE licence held by the petitioner under the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) has been suspended by the order dated 27th February, 1991. passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerganj. This order is being impugned in the present petition.
(2.) THE only reason given for suspending the licence is that on 21st February, 1991, a first information report had been lodged in which an allegation had been made that certain irregularities had been committed by the petitioner while dealing in essential commodities. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 of the Order provides that if the Licensing Authority is satisfied that any licensee or his servant or agent or any other person acting on his behalf has contravened any provision of the Order or the terms or conditions of the licence, it may without prejudice to any other action that may be taken, by an order in writing suspend or cancel the licence in respect of scheduled commodities covered by the licence or in respect of such commodities as it may think fit. The proviso to sub-clause (2) lays down that no order shall be made unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity of setting out his case against the proposed suspension or cancellation, as the case may be. Sub- clause (3), inter alia, provides that the Licensing Authority may suspend a licence pending proceedings under sub-clause (2). Clause 10. inter alia, provides for an appeal against an order of suspension passed under sub- clause (2) of Clause 8. We have gone through the impugned order carefully and we are satisfied that it has not been passed pending proceedings under sub-clause (2). Therefore, the order will be treated to have been passed as a measure of punishment under sub clause (2).
(3.) AS already indicated, the sole basis of the order is the first information report. It is trite law that such a report cannot be used as a substantive or primary evidence of the truth of its contents It can be used merely to corroborate or contradict the informant's evidence in Court. In sub-clause (2) the expression of the opinion of the Licensing Authority that any provision of the Order or the terms or the conditions of the licence has been contravened is implicit. The satisfaction of the Licensing Authority has to be of a contravention. The requirement in the proviso of an opportunity of a bearing makes it clear that the nature of the proceedings before the Licensing Authority are quasi judicial. This intendment is fortified by the provision of an appeal againt the order of suspension. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that under subclause (2) the Licensing Authority is enjoined to decide the issue as to whether any provision of the Order or terms or conditions of the licence has been contravened. The decision, therefore, has to be on an objective basis. The idea of a subjective satisfaction in the context and setting of sub-clause (2) is absolutely foreign. It also follows that the decision is to be based on relevant and valid consideration. There has to be a nexus between the material and the opinion formed or the satisfaction recorded. In other words, there should be a rational or proximate relationship between the conclusion reached and the material before the Licensing Authority. The contents of a first information report alone cannot be the foundation of the opinion or the satisfaction. Such a decision, will be, in the eye of law. a decision based on no evidence or material and, therefore, perverse. The logical consequence would be that such a decision will be considered without jurisdiction. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. We have not considered it necessary to call for a counter-affidavit in this petition as, in our opinion, the impugned order cannot be improved upon by any averment made in the counter-affidavit.;