RANGLAL SAH MUKHLAL SAH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two . writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as the points involved are the same. The petitioners in both the cases are firms holding wholesale foodgrains dealers' licence under the Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Licensing Order'), The prayer in both the two applications is to quash Annexure 4 dated 24th October, 1975 by which the licences granted to the petitioners were cancelled.

(2.) Admittedly the two petitioners held wholesale food grains dealers' licence under the Licensing Order, They claim that they were carrying on trade under the items specified in their licences. On 30th June, 1975, the District Supply Officer, respondent No. 2, asked the petitioners in both the cases to show cause as to why they were not taking interest in the business of wheat and as to why their food grains dealers' licence should not be cancelled. On receipt of this show cause notice, the petitioners filed their show cause on 21st July, 1975. The show cause filed by the two petitioners are identical and have been marked as Annexure 2 to these two writ applications. A perusal of the show cause filed by the petitioners shows that small transaction in wheat was admitted. The petitioners, however, sought to justify the small transaction on account of non-availability of wheat from any place outside the State and restriction in its movement Another reason for the short transaction was that the wheat production in the locality was 'small'. Thereafter on 28th July, 1975, the petitioners were served with another notice directing them to make 500 quintals of wheat available, It was said in the notice that in case they did not comply with the direction their licences would be cancelled. A copy of this notice has been marked as Annexure 3 to the two writ applications. The petitioners did not comply with the direction given in the notice dated 28th July, 1975, instead they filed explanations stating that it was not possible for the reasons given therein to make 500 quintals of wheat available in their stock. A copy of the explanation has been marked as Annexure 3 (a) to the two writ applications. Thereafter respondent No. 2 informed the petitioners by his notice dated 24th October, 1975, that respondent No. 1 had cancelled their wholesale dealers' licence.

(3.) The petitioners instead of filing appeal under Clause 9 of the Licensing Order came direct to this Court challenging the validity of the order cancelling their licence. In support of the applications Mr. Sanyal strenuously urged that the direction to make 500 quintals of wheat available for sale was without jurisdiction and, as such, non-compliance with the direction could not authorise the respondent to cancel the wholesale dealers' Licence of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the licence could be cancelled under Clause 7 of the Licensing Order only when the terms and conditions of the licence were contravened by the licensee or by any other person acting on behalf of the licensee. He further urged that the terms and conditions of the licence did not authorise the licensing authority to direct the two petitioners to make any quantity of wheat available in their stock for sale. In view of the submission advanced by Mr. Sanyal, it becomes necessary to examine the terms and conditions of the licence granted to the petitioners. The terms and conditions of the licence for carrying on business of wholesale dealers in foodgrains are contained in Form B, the licence itself. For our purpose condition No. 10 only is relevant and it will be useful to quote it:--