- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 229 dated 15.05.2004 passed by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka (Respondent No.4), whereby the petitioner's license was suspended and thereafter cancelled by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka (Respondent no.4) and further for quashing the appellate order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in R.M.R Case No. 4/200506, whereby the petitioner's revision against the original order dated 15.5.2004, has been dismissed and the order of the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka, has been confirmed. It is submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted license under Public Distribution System vide License no. 46/96 for village Patanpur of Masalia Block, District Dumka. However, a show cause was issued on 23.02.2004 by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka, whereby his license was also put under suspension and he was asked to show cause within a period of 3 days only. It is not denied that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the said show cause notice and the order dated 15.5.2004 as contained in Memo No. 229, was passed by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka, canceling his license for Public Distribution System Shop. It is further submitted that the order is illegal as without opportunity of principle of natural justice and upon the dictates of his superior Sub Divisional Officer the impugned original order was passed, as would appear from perusal of the order itself. However the petitioner is aggrieved against the said order. Later on, he moved in R.M.R. Case No. /200506 before the Deputy commissioner Dumka, a copy of which annexed as Annexure3 to this writ petition. Thereafter, the appellate order has been passed vide Annexure4 dated 08.11.2006, confirming the order passed by the Original Authority. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority has failed to take into account the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the merit of the case and confirmed the order of cancellation although the original order was passed without opportunity of principle of natural justice by giving a show cause notice within three days for submitting his explanation and moreover in view of the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification ) Order, 1984, the power to cancel a license could not be delegated by the Licensing Authority, which admittedly in this case was the Sub Divisional Officer while the original order has been passed by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka. The petitioner being aggrieved by two orders, has moved this court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsState has appeared and filed their counter affidavit. By relying upon the averments made in the said affidavit submitted that in course of checking by the Block Development officer, Masalia, Dumka the dealer i.e. petitioner did not produce the demand stock register to the concerned officer and the ration cards were also found to be kept with the dealer and commodities were not supplied for last several months to beneficiaries, who were Red Card Holders belonging to the B.P.L.Category. Even the distribution of kerosene oil was not undertaken regularly and after interval of several months they were supplied kerosene oil.
(3.) IN view of the above, the shows notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.2.2004 by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Dumka, asking him to show cause, but the petitioner failed to reply the show cause and the order was passed after a considerable time on 15.5.2004 only. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2005, wherein the petitioner was granted enough opportunity to defend himself but the charges against the petitioner which were also contained in the show cause notice issued to him, were not adequately replied by him and Deputy Commissioner accordingly confirmed the order passed by the Original Authority. The petitioner being a licensee of the Public Distribution System is obliged also as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for regular supply of food grains to be made to the indigent persons but has violated the terms of the license and also committed several irregularities which have been taken note in the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner itself. It is submitted that since Deputy Commissioner has given adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, before him in the revision petition preferred by the petitioner after a considerable lapse of time the plea of violation of principal of natural justice is no longer tenable. It is further stated that even otherwise since the Deputy Commissioner is the Appellate Authority, who has taken into account all the submissions of the petitioner any irregularities in passing the original order has been cured by the Appellate Authority. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully going through the records and impugned orders, it appears that the petitioner was asked to show cause against the serious charges levelled against him in relation to the shop for which license under the Public Distribution System was issued to him, but the petitioner failed to make reply to the said show cause and the original order was passed by the concerned authority, however, which appears to be cryptic order. In any case, the petitioner preferred an appeal on merits before the Appellate Authority. Since the provisions of appeal is in a sense continuation of the original proceeding, the petitioner was allowed adequate opportunity to defend himself over the charges levelled against him and the Deputy Commissioner it appears after proper application of mind and taking into account all the charges of serious irregularities against him as also the defence raised by the petitioner passed the impugned orders, which is a reasoned and speaking order. Since the matter relates to distribution of license under the Public Distribution System where the beneficiaries are the indigent persons who belong to the B.P.L. Category latches and acts of such irregularities on the part of the petitioner, could not have been overlooked either by the Original Authority or by the Appellate Authority and when the petitioner has been found to have committed serious irregularities in the matter of distribution of essential commodities, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Original Authority since the Appellate Authority has given adequate opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, any irregularities in passing the original order has been cured as the Deputy Commissioner is the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the control order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and on account of such technicality the impugned orders cannot be set aside;