SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) Issues involved in this case to be decided are as follows :- (i) Whether the statutory competent authority after taking independent decision would fail to act on the basis of the decision thereby referring the subject to his Superior Officer; (ii) Whether the impugned order suffers from the doctrine of dictation so also without jurisdiction; (iii) When admittedly there is no appeal in the eye of law thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner 's daughter on behalf of the petitioner on the technical ground, then cancellation of the petitioner 's licence by the Director of consumer goods on 25th February, 2014 exists.
(2.) Fact of the Case: The petitioner 's case in brief is as follows :- The petitioner was a kerosene dealer and was granted dealership licence by the Director of Consumer Goods under West Bengal Kerosene Control Order 1968. Since then petitioner had been carrying on business as a kerosene dealer under the name and style of M/s Balaram Bhander as a proprietor. On 28th February, 2005 the Director issued a notice thereby suspended the petitioner 's licence and also directed to reply to the charges framed therein. Pursuant to the same on 7th March 2005 the petitioner appeared in the hearing before the Director and made submission and also filed reply to the said notice dated 28th February, 2005 and 2nd March, 2005. Thereafter vide order dated 24th March, 2005 the petitioner 's licence was cancelled. On 18th April, 2005 petitioner filed an appeal for restoration of his kerosene oil dealership. Due to his illness the petitioner failed to take steps in respect of his pending appeal. Therefore after recovery the petitioner filed another appeal before the appellate authority on 11th September, 2007. Since then petitioner made repeated representations before the authorities praying inter alia for restoration of his licence and ultimately sometime in December, 2007 the petitioner was asked to submit another appeal before the commissioner and Principle Secretary and accordingly the petitioner submitted another appeal on 21st January, 2008 before the appellate authority. In course of time the landlord of the shop room took forcible possession thereof taking advantage of closure of petitioner 's business, the petitioner without finding any alternative approached this Hon 'ble Court by filling writ petition being no. W.P 361 of 2011 which was disposed of by order dated 18th May, 2011 thereby directing the respondent authority to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of the hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said judgment and order on 18th May, 2011 the authority passed a decision on 3rd June, 2011 thereby quashing the order of cancellation dated 24th March, 2005 and further directing the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings on the ground of same allegations strictly in accordance with law. Upon quashing of the cancellation order of the petitioner 's licence the petitioner prayed before the director to allow him to continue with dealership at the changed site at B/502/H/8 , Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700005. Accordingly the petitioner was allowed to resume his business from the changed place of business. Thereafter on 20th January, 2014 the Director issued show cause notice on the allegations referred therein and immediately thereafter the Director issued an order on 6th February, 2014 making fresh allegations and directed the petitioner to appear in the hearing on 18th February, 2014 in his chamber. Since the petitioner at that relevant point of time was in UK due to his treatment of cancer the daughter of the petitioner appeared in hearing on 18th February, 2014 before the Director and requested him to allow the petitioner to run the said business through his daughter by virtue of a power of attorney. Unfortunately on 25th February, 2014 the Director cancelled the petitioner 's licence on the alleged ground that the petitioner did not appear for hearing though admittedly the petitioner appeared through his daughter and submitted a request on the same date i.e. on 18th February, 2014. Petitioner filed a statutory appeal against the said rejection order dated 25th February, 2014 which was also rejected only on the ground of delay of seven days but not on merit. Since the appeal was not considered on merit the petitioner claimed to be entitled to a fresh licence against the cancelled licence and accordingly the petitioner made a representation before the authority on 18th July, 2014 for grant of licence of kerosene dealership. Thereafter the authority directed the petitioner to submit same documents for grant of licence. Accordingly the petitioner on 7th August, 2014 submitted the documents in the office of the Director. The Director passed the order on 14th August, 2014 thereby directing his officers to hold enquiry in the petitioner 's application for grant of licence and such enquiry was conducted by an inspector and report was also submitted by the said inspector on 27th August, 2014 thereby recommending the petitioner 's case. On 5th October, 2014 the Director approved the petitioner 's case for issuance of a fresh licence in favour of the petitioner and sent the records to his superior officer, namely, Food Commissioner and at the dictate of the Food Commissioner, the Director passed another order on 30th October, 2014 thereby directing not to issue licence to the petitioner and to declare the vacancy of the same and accordingly recalled his own order. Hence, the present writ petition for cancellation of the impugned order dated 30th October, 2014 and to issue kerosene dealership licence in favour of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 15th October, 2014.
(3.) Submissions of the Learned Advocates: Mr. Ram Anand Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Paragraph 6 of the Control Order 1968 the Director being the statutory authority passed an order on 15th October, 2014 for grant of licence to the petitioner. As per paragraph 8 of the Control Order 1968 the Director has the jurisdiction to grant or renew the licence to a dealer. Under Paragraph 10 of the Control Order 1968 the Commissioner/Principal Secretary was the appellate authority against the order passed by the Director. The paragraph 8 and 10 of the Control Order 1968 are respectively quoted below: "Paragraph-8-Refusal to grant or renew license-The Director or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction, may after giving the agent or the dealer concerned an opportunity of stating his case in writing and for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to grant or renew a license under this order. Paragraph-10-Appeal- (a) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under paragraph 8 or paragraph 9 of this Order, may within 30 days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the State Government in the Food and Supplies Department. (b) Elsewhere- (i) where the order is passed by the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of a district, to the State Government, (ii) where the order is passed by any other officer authorised by the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of a district under clause of paragraph 3, to the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, of the district." ;