Ganendra Narayan Roy, J. - (1.) This Appeal is directed against judgment and Order dated August 13, 1975, passed by the learned trial Judge in C. R. No.6255(W) of 1974. It is really unfortunate that this Appeal has come up for hearing before us after a lapse of about 15 years. It appears that the Appellant Jugal Kanta Pramanik was appointed a modified Ration Dealer in respect of Ward No. 1 of Santipur in District of Nadia and he had been carrying on the said M. R. Dealership. It appears that Santipur P.S. Case No. 21 dated August 22, 1974 under section 7(1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act X of 1955) was instituted against the said M. R. dealer on certain charges of irregularity in the discharge of his duties as an M. R. Dealer. On September 22, 1974, the Sub-divisional Controller, Food and Supply Ranaghat suspended the M.R. Dealership of Shri Pramanik in view of the fact that such Santipur Police Case under the Essential Commodities Act had been pending. Being aggrieved by such action of suspension a Writ petition was moved by Shri Pramanik whereupon C. R. No. 6255(W) of 1974 arose. The learned trial Judge by the Order appealed against dismissed the Writ petition on the ground that the order of suspension of M. R Dealership could not be agitated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution since such suspension is based on agreement entered into between the parties. The Rule was,'therefore, discharged by the learned trial Judge. As aforesaid, instant appeal has been preferred by the Writ petitioner Shri Pramanik.
(2.) Mr. Moitra. the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the dealer was placed under suspension only because a criminal case was instituted against him under the Essential Commodities Act The authorities of the Food Department and/or the authorities under the agreement of M. R. Dealership have not taken into consideration any objective fact independency and had not come to any decision that in terms of the agreement be suspension was warranted. He has also submitted that although under Clause 17 of the agreement, power of suspension has been given but such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously and the governmental action must be backed by reason. He has also submitted that indiscriminate order of suspension has been allowed to continue indefinitely thereby causing serious loss and prejudice to the M. R. Dealer. Mr. Moitra has contended that the very exercise of power of suspension was Dot in conformity with the agreement between the parties and such governmental action was also arbitrary and capricious thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned trial Judge had gone wrong in discharging the Rule on an erroneous view that the power of suspension being a matter of contract, no action by the Writ Court was called for.
(3.) Mr. Moitra in this connection has referred to a very recent decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of Mohabir Auto VI Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation reported in AIR 1990 SC at page 1031. The Chief Justice of India presiding over the Bench has held in the said decision that action of the State executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. If a governmental action even in the matters of entering or not entering into contracts, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, the same would be unreasonable. Rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and discrimination, rules of fair play and natural Justice are part of the rule of law applicable in situation or action by State instrumentality in dealing with citizens. Even though the rights of the citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the manner, the method and motive of a decision of entering or not entering into a contract, are subject to Judicial review on the touchstone on relevance and reasonableness, fair-play, natural Justice, equality and non-discrimination. Relying on the said decision, Mr. Moitra has submitted that the concerned authority failed to take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances objectively and did not arrive into any conclusion on such objective consideration of facts that suspension was warranted, but mechanically passed the order of suspension simply because a police case was instituted against the M R. Dealer. Such authority has also not made any further exercise in considering as to whether or not such order of suspension should continue and as a matter of fact, the order has been allowed to continue tor about 16 years to serious loss and prejudice of the M. R Deafer. Such Government action on the face of it, must be held to capricious and devoid of any reasonableness and on that ground alone should be struck down.;