Jharkhand High Court
Ramprasad Sahu Aged About 50 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 25 November, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 4318 of 2021
Ramprasad Sahu aged about 50 years, son of Late Baijnath Sahu
Resident of Kamdara P.O. and P.S. Kamdara District-Gumla
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Land Revenue
Department, Government of Jharkhand P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District
Gumla
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Basia P.O. and P.S. Gumla, district
Gumla
4. The Circle Officer, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Shiv Prasad Sahu, Advocate
: Mr. Ram Prawesh Prajapati, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak,
A.C. to S.C. V
---
07/25.11.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"For further taking in to consideration that the said Fair
Price Shop provided to the petitioner l.e. 17/1985, Under
Bihar Essential Commodities Act (Unification Control
order) 1984 no complain was made by any Beneficiaries
against the petitioner, enquiry report on the basis of
which Respondent proceeded in the matter. not provided
to the petitioner, no proper opportunity of hearing was
given, whereas in this context decision has been taken by
the state of Jharkhand vide order dated 16.06.2005
directing the authority that in such matter a committee be
constituted in every District of the State and in the
chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner and the
committee only can pass such order on recommendation
of Sub Divisional Officer, Suspension or Cancellation
Order etc can be passed but the same has violated in this
matter, such issue already decided by this Hon'ble court
vide order dt 26 November 2019, passed in WPC
4008/2015 the case of the petitioner fully covers from the
same.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate direction to the
Respondent no 3, under what authority of law, he is sitting
over the matter discarding /ignoring direction of the
Higher Authority Res no 2 (Deputy Commissioner Gumla)
as transpired from the letter no 1101 (ii) dated
16.09.2016 (Annexure 1) whereby the said respondent
directed, to take steps shortly for restoring fair price shop
of the petitioner situated at Kamdara vide license no.
17/1985, in the light of Final Form no 47/dated
29.08.2016 submitted in favour of the petitioner by the
Investigating Officer of the case.
(iii) For asking show cause from the respondent 2 under
what circumstances he has exceeded and exercised his
power, otherwise, issued the letter 109 dated 21.05.2016
(Annexure 2) directing the subordinate respondent (Res
no 3 to proceed in the matter as directed and apparent
from that letter, without following the required procedure
and violating principal of natural justice
(iv) For quashing of order dated 05.07.2016 by which the
said Res no 3 cancelled the fair price license, 17/1985,
(Annexure 3/1 ) the said respondent has acted arbitrarily
and illegally in the matter, that though in this context one
FIR has been lodged against the petitioner, as Kamdara
PS case no 19/2016, under section 7 of the EC Act, with
only allegation that 10 bags of rice excess found in the
shop of the petitioner, wherein lastly final form no 47/16
dt 30.08.16.submitted by IO of the case and allegation
leveled found incorrect, but very hastily Res no 3 in the
light of inspection dated 11.05.2016 done by the Circle
officer, pleased to issue order of suspension of the said
fair price shop, vide order dated 28.06.2011 (Annexure 3)
and after one week he further passed on order dated
05.07.2016 cancellation of his Fair price shop.
(v) For asking show cause from the respondents under
what authority the said respondent no 2, has not paid any
attention on the representation filed by the petitioner in
this context after final investigation along with final form
to consider the matter accordingly, because without any
fault in the part of the petitioner and inspection of the said
shop done in his absence and without providing any
opportunity of hearing to him passed the order having no
such authority passed order dated 05.07.2016, which is
under challenge where as the representation submitted
before Res no 2 (DC Gumla), consider the same and
passed appropriate direction therein vide letter no
1101(ii) dated 16.09.2016 to restore his fair price shop as
aforesaid.
(V)For To issue any other order/orders and/or direction
/directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case for doing
conscionable justice to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
was having fair price shop vide license No. 17 of 1985. However, vide
letter dated 21.05.2016 it was alleged that 10 bags of rice were found in
excess in the premises of the petitioner and it was observed in the said letter
that a criminal case be also instituted against the petitioner. The fair price
shop license of the petitioner was also suspended and subsequently
cancelled vide order dated 05.07.2016. The learned counsel submits that
pursuant to FIR in the criminal case final form was submitted and final
form has also been accepted by the concerned court vide order 02.08.2019.
4. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order of
cancellation of license has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Basia
and the petitioner made representation before the Deputy Commissioner as
contained in Annexure-6 but having no response the present writ petition
has been filed.
5. The learned has also relied upon the judgment passed by this court in
W.P. (C) No. 4008 of 2015 decided on 26.11.2019 to submit that the State
government had themselves taken a decision way back on 16.06.2005 that
any decision in connection with issuance of license and its suspension,
revocation and cancellation under Public Distribution System will be taken
by a committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner on the
recommendation of the Sub Divisional Officer. He submits that the decision
in the present case has not been taken by the committee and the
representation filed before the Deputy Commissioner has also not been
disposed of.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while opposing
the prayer has submitted that the acceptance of final form in the criminal
case has no bearing in this matter. The PDS license was cancelled after
conducting an enquiry. The enquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-
A series to the counter affidavit. However, during the course of hearing, the
learned counsel has fairly submitted that no opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioner pursuant to the enquiry report and the PDS license
has been cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the
facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that license of the
petitioner has been cancelled by Sub Divisional Officer and an FIR was
also instituted but ultimately final form in the criminal case was submitted
and has been accepted by the competent Court.
8. The judgment of this court in W.P. (C) No. 4008 of 2015 reveals that
a decision was taken by the State Government vide order dated 16.06.2005
that the matter regarding issuance of license and its suspension, revocation
and cancellation under PDS system will be taken up by the Committee
headed by the Deputy Commissioner certainly on the recommendation of
the Sub Divisional Officer, Admittedly, in the present the cancellation of
license has not been done by the Committee and in spite of representation
having been made by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner
against the cancellation of license, no action has been taken by the Deputy
Commissioner. This court finds that the cancellation of license of the
petitioner is not in accordance with the order issued by the Government
dated 16.06.2005 as referred and decided in W.P. (C) No. 4008 of 2015.
Consequently, the order cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the order cancelling the
license of the petitioner dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure-3/1) is hereby set
aside on the aforesaid ground.
9. However, this court is of the view that this order will not amount to
automatic restoration of PDS license of the petitioner in view of the fact
that there are allegations against the petitioner.
10. The petitioner has already represented before the Deputy
Commissioner vide representation dated 28.02.2021. The representation of
the petitioner is directed to be considered by the committee constituted in
terms of order issued by the Government dated 16.06.2005 under the
chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla. The petitioner to appear
before the Deputy Commissioner on 11.12.2024 at 11.30 A.M along with a
copy of the records of this writ petition accompanied with the detailed
representation. The Sub Divisional Officer shall also appear before the
Deputy Commissioner on the same day along with the connected records.
11. Upon appearance of the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner,
the matter be placed before the committee who after granting an
opportunity to the petitioner and also the Sub Divisional Officer and upon
going through the records shall pass a reasoned order by 24.12.2024 is
accordance with law . The reasoned order be communicated to the parties
through speed-post.
12. At this stage of the dictation of the order, the learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that during the course of inspection the petitioner
was given an opportunity but it appears that no opportunity was given to the
petitioner to respond to the report after its preparation. Since the report has
already been placed on record by the respondents through the counter
affidavit it will certainly be opened to the petitioner to respond to the report
while filing in his representation.
13. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
