- (1.) In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent No. 4), as contained in Annexure-6, by which he has cancelled the PDS dealer's licence of the petitioner. It has been asserted that the challenge of the petitioner was maintainable and fit to be sustained on the ground that: (i) the impugned order has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity to him; (ii) the same was vitiated on account of direction of the District Magistrate for action to be taken against him on the basis of report submitted by the officials; (iii) the order of the District Magistrate had taken away the right of petitioner to appeal against the said order; and (iv) there was non-consideration of show cause reply of the petitioner by respondent No. 4. Facts of the case are that there was some complaint against the petitioner by some of the beneficiaries/consumers, vide Annexure-1. It was accompanied with individual statements of the some of the complainants also and was addressed to the District Supply Officer who appears to have forwarded it to the Block Supply Officer for enquiry. Accordingly, the Block Supply Officer held enquiry and submitted his report through letter No. 261 dated 13.10.2012, vide Annexure-2. The District Supply Officer, in turn, forwarded the same to the District Magistrate with a copy of the same to respondent No. 4 through his letter No. 1692 dated 8.11.2012, vide Annexure-3, for information and for further action. On receipt of the said letter, respondent No. 4 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner through memo No. 878 dated 29.11.2012, vide Annexure-4, enclosing the said letter of the. District Supply Officer, report of the Block Supply Officer, the complaint of the consumers and copies of the statements recorded during the enquiry. Petitioner accordingly submitted his reply, vide Annexure-5 dated 3.12.2012. Finally, respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order, as contained in memo No. 59 dated 23.1.2013, vide Annexure-6.
(2.) In respect of the first challenge of the petitioner that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to him, this Court finds that notice to the petitioner is dated 29.11.2012 in response to which he filed a reply on 3.12.2012. In his reply, he has not taken any stand that either the time for reply was short or any relevant material or document had not been supplied to him depriving him of reasonable opportunity to place his defence before the Licensing Authority.
(3.) Much argument was advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of direction of the District Magistrate to the Licensing Authority for taking action on the report submitted by the officials. Learned counsel for the petitioner put great stress on the opening of the impugned order with the wordingsBy this learned counsel for the petitioner inferred that there was a direction by the District Magistrate, who was the Appellate Authority under the law, to take action against the petitioner which vitiated the impugned order as it amounted to influencing the decision of a quasi-judicial authority in exercise of its statutory powers.;