- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15th June 2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2007 by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan Division), Chaibasa whereby his revision under clause-29 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 against the order dated 30th October 2002 passed by the Special Officer (Rationing), Jamshedpur, has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 30th October 2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the Special Officer (Rationing), Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 2) whereby the petitioner's trade licence no. 98/1986 and agreement entered with the State pursuant thereto, has also been cancelled. According to the petitioner, he was granted trade licence no. 98/1986 under Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Unification Order', 1984) for the supply of kerosene, foodstuffs, etc. According to the petitioner, he continued to deal in the aforesaid articles for 16 long years without any complaint from any quarter. However, he was served with a show-cause notice on 5.10.2002 (Annexure-2) by the respondent no. 2 on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum (Respondent No. 3) wherein the petitioner's licence was suspended and he was asked to show-cause as to why it may not be cancelled. The petitioner thereafter submitted his show- cause which is annexure-3 and the order cancelling his trade licence was passed by the Special Officer (Rationing), Jamshedpur which is at annexure-5 to the writ application. The petitioner's revision being Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 before the Commissioner, Sought Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi under Clause-29 of the Unification Order, 1984 was dismissed (Annexure-6). Whereafter, he approached this court vide W.P.(C) No. 6178 of 2003. By order dated 26.02.2007 (Annexure-7), the matter was remanded to the Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan, Chaibasa to decide the revision afresh. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 15th June 2007, contained at annexure-8 has been passed once again rejecting his revision application while upholding the order of the Licencing Authority. The grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner are that the Deputy Commissioner, while directing the respondent no. 2, Special Rationing Officer, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 12th September 2002 (Annexure-1) had pre-judged the issue and rest of the actions were foregone conclusion. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments, one reported in 1987 East. Cr. Cases 398 (Patna) and another reported in AIR 1972 Calcutta 405. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the court to the Unification Order, 1984 and Form-C thereunder to submit that the relevant clause laying down the conditions of grant of licence at Clauses-5, 10 and 13 have not been violated and no findings have been recorded in that respect by the authority concerned. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order is passed upon the innocent submission made by the petitioner in his show- cause reply to the effect that he used to provide kerosene oil to any of the card holders on necessity even though they may not have come with the ration card for the purpose. Based upon the aforesaid submission, it is argued that the impugned orders suffer from non- application of mind and have been passed under the dictates of the authority who had prejudged the issue and the impugned orders are not passed upon any findings recorded in respect of the violation of the conditions of the licences or the Unification Order, 1984. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders. Counsel for the respondents submits that on complaints being made by the residents in respect of the shop for which the trade licence was issued to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2, Deputy Commissioner directed for inquiry into the said complaint. Thereafter, a team consisting of eight officers were constituted who inquired 303 card holders and verified their cards and submitted its inquiry report which contain specific allegations of misuse of the licence on the part of the petitioner and which also indicated possibility of black marketing being done. Counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner even failed to submit a satisfactory reply to the show-cause notice in which names of some of the complainants along with their allegations were also included but they stood unrebutted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner's own admission in his show-cause reply, is enough to come to the conclusion that he had failed to comply with the provisions of the Unification Order, 1984 framed under exercise of powers under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1985.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record including the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. So far as the first contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner had pre-judged the issue while directing the Special Officer (Rationing) to initiate proceeding against the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the preliminary inquiry was conducted on complaints made by the card holders by a team consisting of eight officers of the district administration constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, who upon inquiry and verification of 303 card holders, gave a report. The Deputy Commissioner simply forwarded the report to the Special Officer (Rationing) asking him to take steps in accordance with law in the matter. The show-cause notice vide annexure-2 thereafter was issued wherein the petitioner's licence was placed under suspension which is permissible under Clause-12 of the Unification Order, 1984. Thereafter, a proceeding for cancellation of lience was initiated,pursuant to which show-cause notice containing the allegations in respect of violation of the Unification Order, 1984 on the part of the petitioner in supplying kerosene oil to such card holders for considerable length of time was issued. From perusal of the show-cause notice, it appears that the contents of the inquiry report which were relevant for the petitioner to know the charges, have been incorporated in the show-cause itself while asking him to furnish the reply. It is not a case when the petitioner was unaware of the charges for which the proceedings for cancellation of licence was initiated. It further appears that the petitioner furnished the show-cause reply in a perfunctory manner. Moreover, he has himself in so many words made admission that he used to supply kerosene oil to the persons who did not produce the ration card in question. The impugned order thereafter has been passed by the Special Officer (Rationing) taking into account the explanation offered by the petitioner vide annexure-5. The original order does not appear to suffer from any infirmity in which specific case of complaint has been taken into account. The Revisional Authority reconsidered the petitioner's revision on remand by this court and upon discussing the material before him as also the admission of the petitioner, did not find any infirmity with the impugned order passed by the original authority. This court does not sit in appeal while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is apparent that on complaints, an inquiry was held, the gist of the inquiry along with the specific names of some of the complainants were furnished in the show-cause notice to the petitioner who failed to furnish the satisfactory reply. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. The contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has prejudged the issue, is not worth accepting because he has simply forwarded the inquiry report and he himself has not taken any decision and it is the licencing authority who after considering the show-cause furnished by the petitioner, has taken the decision to cancel the licence and the petitioner's allegation that it has been done on the dictates of the Deputy Commissioner, is not correct. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.;