- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that by an order dated 1.2.2012 contained in memo no. 01(Annexure -5) the Licensing Authority cum Sub -Divisional Officer, Dhanbad has cancelled the P.D.S. License of the petitioner bearing License No. 5/Ch/90. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner is that by a vague show cause notice issued on 14.10.2011, allegedly based upon the inspection carried out on 27.8.2011 by a team constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad the license of the petitioner was placed under suspension and he was asked to file reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no details of the alleged complaints of the cardholders of the female category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members and those belonging to weaker section were furnished to him, who alleged to have made complaints. The second allegation relating to improper distribution of APL food articles amongst card holders was also not substantiated and neither was the allegation relating to the black marketing. In respect of charge no. 3 relating to distribution of Kerosene Oil also no details of any such inspection report were furnished and it was straightway alleged that thumb impression of 95% of the card holders were similar and no entries were made in the distribution register. It was also alleged that petitioner failed to produce other register and cash memo on being asked. 2011(2) JLJR 295. He has submitted that the P.D.S control order, 2001 has also not been made effective by the State till now which has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the said case.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent - State has submitted that petitioner has been issued show cause notice on the basis of inspection carried out by a team constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. He was found to have committed various irregularities which were in contravention of clause 3(ka) sub sections 1,2,3,4 and 11 of the provisions of the License Act/Rule. It is further submitted that during the course of inquiry from the card holders it was noticed that although 2 litres of Kerosene Oil was distributed amongst the cardholders per month for which earlier Rs. 26/ - was being paid but for the last 3 to 4 months petitioner was realizing Rs. 30/ - as the cost of 2 litres. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in the inquiry report it is clear that on verification of stock and sale register of Kerosene Oil, it was noticed that petitioner had lifted 1000 litres on 3.8.2011, 400 litres on 23.8.2011 and 265 litres on 28.8.2011. Thereafter, the distribution register shows that average distribution was amongst 150 cardholders per day. On the date of inquiry i.e. 27.8.2011 the closing stock was written as 'nil'. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that he was not asked to produce any evidence is not correct. Such manner of distribution was found to be not proper by the inquiry committee and, therefore, he was issued show cause notice. After consideration of his reply, it was found unsatisfactory and accordingly, his PDS license was cancelled.;