- (1.) This Rule is directed against the order of termination of petitioner's M.R. Dealership passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalpaiguri, dated 15th September, 1975. On November 13. 1972 the petitioner, against the order of suspension of his dealership, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule, being C.R. 7677(W) of 1972 and also obtained an ad-interim order of injunction against the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri from settling the shop with any person or authority for a period of five weeks after the long vacation with liberty to apply for extension and/or further interim order with notice to the other side before the appropriate Bench. Pursuant to the liberty given to the petitioner, an application for the extension of the interim order with notice to the respondents was moved before Mr. Justice P. K. Banerjee. The learned Judge by his order dated 22nd December, 1972 extended the interim order in terms of prayer till the disposal of the said application. The application was adjourned till four weeks after Christmas vacation. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application for contempt on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the orders passed by Mr. Justice Banerjee. A Rule for contempt upon Sub-divisional Controller Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri was issued. Subsequently the contempt Rule was discharged. The main Rule was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner on the verbal assurance given to him by the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri that the said Sub-divisional Controller would withdraw the suspension order if the case pending in court be withdrawn by the petitioner. On 18th of May, 1975 the learned Advocate for the petitioner wrote a letter to the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri that on an oral prayer made to the Hon'ble Court the application under Art. 226 of the Constitution was withdrawn by the petitioner, Mahabir Prasad Bansal. The purported order of suspension was therefore no longer subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court and the entire matter was left open for the authorities for proper consideration. The allegations centring round the purported order of suspension were wholly nonest and the authority concerned would be pleased to consider the entire matter in its correct perspective. Thereafter, on 6th of June, 1975 the petitioner made representation to the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri for withdrawal of the said suspension order on the aforesaid assurance. The petitioner being aggrieved by the refusal of the Respondents in withdrawing the order of suspension, moved the present application under Art. 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule. Subsequently the petition has been amended and the order of termination of his dealership has been challenged.
(2.) On 7th of July, 1970 the petitioner made an application for M.R. Dealership at Binnaguri within Dhupguri Police Station in the district of Jalpaiguri. On 3rd August, 1970 the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri wrote a letter to the petitioner informing him about his appointment as a M.R. dealer, in the said letter the petitioner was further informed that for the purpose of his appointment, he was required to obtain a licence under the West Bengal Kerosene Oil Control Order, 1965 and a licence under the West Bengal Foodgrains (Licencing & Control) Order 1967. He was also required to execute an agreement in the prescribed Model Form and to furnish security deposit of Rs. 250/- by 5th of September 1970. The petitioner complied with the terms of the said letter. An agreement was executed on the 1st of September, 1970 between the Governor of the State of West Bengal and the petitioner. The relevant clauses of the agreement are set out hereunder. Clause-17: The District Magistrate or the Controller with the approval of District Magistrate without assigning any reason and without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the Government against the Retailer may suspend supply of food stuffs to the Retailer forthwith and cancel this agreement in the opinion of the Controller, which shall be final if the Retailer has failed to observe, fulfil or perform any of the terms and conditions on the part of the Retailer herein contained or to carry out or observe any directions given to the Retailer under the provisions of this Agreement. Clause-18 Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the District Magistrate or the Controller, as the case may be, shall at any time be at liberty in his uncontrolled discretion and without assigning any reason to terminate this agreement on giving one month's notice in writing of his intention to terminate the agreement and the Retailer shall have no claim for loss or damage on that account against the Government and the Retailer shall also be at liberty to terminate the agreement after giving similar aforesaid notice.
(3.) It is stated by the petitioner that by order dated 8th of February 1972, Sub-Inspector, Food & Supplies, Gayerkata directed the petitioner to keep his ration shop fully closed on Saturdays and closed for half day on Sundays. On 8th of July, 1972 which was a Saturday, the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Jalpaiguri went to the petitioner's shop at about 2-30 P. M. when the petitioner's shop remained closed. The petitioner's man informed the Sub-divisional Officer accordingly. Thereafter, on 28th of July, 1972 the petitioner was served with an order dated 27th July, 1972 passed by the Sub-divisional Controller, suspending the petitioner's M. R. dealership of Karbala Tea Estate on the allegations that Fulchand Agarwala, an employee of the petitioner, refused to make available Registers and documents to the Sub-divisional Officer Sadar Jalpaiguri during his inspection of the M.R. Shop on the 8th July, 1972 and thereby prevented him from verifying the allegations of maladministration and holding of spurious ration cards. The conduct of the employee of the M.R. dealer was considered not upto the condition of the agreement entered into by the M. R. dealer. Thereupon on 5th of September, 1972 a show-cause notice was issued upon the petitioner calling upon him to show-cause why his M.R. dealership should not be cancelled or any other disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner. In the said show-cause notice three charges were mentioned. Petitioner was asked to submit his explanation on the above charges within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The charges against the petitioner were as follows:- (a) His employee refused to produce register and accounts etc. to S.D.O., Sadar for verification on 8.7.72 on demand by the said S.D.O. (b) Petitioner served M.R. commodity on 18.5.72 and 20.5.72 against some ration cards which had already been cancelled by the Area Sub-Inspector. (c) Petitioner maintained fictitious accounts as sales, noted in cash memos which in some cases did not tally with those noted in the sale register. The petitioner replied to the said charges. But in view of the interim order passed in previous C R. 7677 (W) of 1972, no further action was taken in the matter.;