Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4466 of 2018
Dilip Kumar Ram ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 5921 of 2018
Kamal Prasad ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro
4. The District Supply Officer, Bokaro
5. The Block Development Officer, Nawadih, Bokaro ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 6426 of 2018
Lakra Enterprises, through its proprietor, Nizeal Lakra @ Nizal Lakra
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi
..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 225 of 2019
Madan Kumar Pandey ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Commissioner, Palamau Division,
Palamau
2. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, Palamau
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau
5. The District Supply Officer, Palamau
6. The Block Supply Officer, Lesliganj, Palamau ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 1558 of 2020
Dilip Kumar Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi
1
4. The Block Supply Officer, Lapung, Ranchi ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nilesh Kumar
Ms. Ayushi
Mr. Amit Kr. Tiwari
For the State: Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C (L&C)-II
-----
12/16.01.2025 Since similar issue has been raised in all these writ petitions, the same
are being taken up together and being disposed of by this common order with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. W.P.(C) No. 4466 of 2018 has been filed for quashing the order dated
22.05.2018 (Annexure-3 to the said writ petition) passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Lohardaga in Licence Appeal No. 3/16-17 whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order as contained in memo No. 355
dated 23.12.2015 (Anneuxre-2 to the said writ petition) passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Lohardaga has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made
for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 355 dated 23.12.2015 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga whereby the P.D.S license of the
petitioner being License No. 03/97 has been cancelled.
3. W.P.(C) No. 5921 of 2018 has been filed for quashing the order dated
04.09.2018 (Annexure-13 to the said writ petition) passed by the Deputy
Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro in Misc. (PDS) Case No. 49/2015
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order as contained in
memo No. 194/Aa dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure-12 to the said writ petition)
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bermo at Tenughat has been dismissed.
Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo No.
194/Aa dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bermo at
Tenughat whereby the P.D.S license of the petitioner being License No. 6/90
has been cancelled.
4. W.P.(C) No. 6426 of 2018 has been filed for quashing the order dated
20.11.2018 (Annexure-3 to the said writ petition) passed by the Commissioner,
South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in License Appeal No. 16/2015 whereby the
appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order as contained in memo No.
03(1)/Aa dated 21.03.2015 (Annexure-1 to the said writ petition) passed by the
Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi has been dismissed.
Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo No.
03(1)/Aa dated 21.03.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District
Magistrate, Ranchi whereby the P.D.S license of the petitioner being License No.
01/87 has been cancelled.
5. W.P.(C) No. 225 of 2019 has been filed for quashing the order dated
01.11.2018 (Annexure-9 to the said writ petition) passed by the Commissioner,
Palamau Division, Medininagar in P.D.S License Cancellation Revision-
XV/14/2017 whereby the order dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure-8 to the said writ
petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in P.D.S License
Cancellation Appeal No. XV/04/2016-17 has been affirmed. Further prayer has
been made for quashing the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Palamau in P. D. S. License Cancellation Appeal No.
XV/04/2016-17 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order
as contained in memo No. 296 dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure-7 to the said writ
petition) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau has
been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order as
contained in memo No. 296 dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau whereby the P.D.S license of the petitioner
being License No. 09/91 has been cancelled.
6. W.P.(C) No. 1558 of 2020 has been filed for quashing the order dated
28.09.2017 (Annexure-6 to the said writ petition) passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi in P.D.S License Appeal No. 342R15/2014-15 whereby
the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order as contained in memo
No. 358 dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure-5 to the said writ petition) passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi has been dismissed. Further prayer has
been made for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 358 dated
29.09.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi whereby the
P.D.S license of the petitioner being License No. 04/1986 has been cancelled.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in the respective writ
petitions jointly submit that since the impugned orders dated 23.12.2015,
22.04.2015, 21.03.2015, 20.05.2016 & 29.09.2014 have been passed by
licensing authorities of the respective cases prior to coming into force of
Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Oder), 2017 and at the
time of passing of the said orders of cancellation of the respective P.D.S licenses
of the petitioner by the licensing authorities, the State Government had not
issued any control order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
to regulate sale and distribution of the commodities relating to the Public
Distribution Shop, the impugned orders whereby the PDS licenses of the
petitioners were cancelled, being without jurisdiction are liable to be set aside.
8. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioners have
put reliance on a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Pramila Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in
2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 1583.
9. On perusal of the record, it appears that this Court vide order dated
20.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4466/2018 with analogous cases had made
the following query:
''Learned counsel for the Respondents-State are directed to
file supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record whether
the PDS (control) order, 2001 by virtue of which PDS license of the
petitioners were cancelled was notified in the State of Jharkhand
or not.
Supplementary counter affidavit should be filed within two
weeks.
List these cases on 06.10.2023.''
10. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 07.12.2023 has been filed on
behalf of the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 4466/2018 stating inter alia that
Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017 was
promulgated and framed in the State of Jharkhand in the year 2017 under
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in exercise of power vested
under Clause 9 of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015
promulgated and framed by the Central Government in supersession of Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001.
11. In the said supplementary counter affidavit, the respondents further
responding to the query made by the Court vide order dated 20.09.2023, have
stated inter alia that the Central Government had promulgated the Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and had prescribed that the State
Government would issue an order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act to regulate sale and distribution of the commodities relating to the Public
Distribution Shop, however, the State of Jharkhand did not notify the Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 till the date of passing of the
impugned orders of cancellation of the petitioner's PDS licenses.
12. Though the respondents in their counter affidavits filed in the respective
cases have also made factual averments denying and disputing the cases made
out by the petitioners on the basis of the facts of each of those, however,
keeping in view that learned counsel for the petitioners have raised the legal
issue that the impugned orders passed by the licensing authorities cancelling
the P.D.S licenses of the petitioners are without jurisdiction as the State of
Jharkhand had not notified any Control Order pursuant to promulgation of the
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 by the Central Government and
the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017 was
framed in the State of Jharkhand in the year 2017 after passing of the
impugned orders by the licensing authorities, this Court does not intend to enter
into the facts involved in the respective cases. It is an admitted position in these
cases that all the impugned orders of cancellation of P.D.S licenses of the
petitioners were passed prior to coming into force of the Jharkhand Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017.
13. Since leaned counsel for the petitioners have put reliance on the
judgement rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Pramila Devi (Supra), it would be appropriate to refer the relevant paragraphs
of the same, which read as under:
''26. The position of law is well settled that any action if
taken by the concerned authority without any authority
of law, the same is nullity in the eyes of law. The
authority of law confers power upon an authority to
take a decision while exercising the statutory power if
conferred under the specific statute.
27. Here, in the given facts of the case, the PDS licence
of the writ petitioner was cancelled on 15.09.2010 and
as would appear from the order of cancellation which is
by virtue of the order dated 27.03.2010 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka wherein such power has
been exercised as conferred under clause 5 of the Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001.
28. This Court has specifically posed a question upon
the respondent-State whether the Control Order, 2001
was notified in the State of Jharkhand or not? If yes,
then it was enforced from which date?
29. While replying the same in the counter affidavit
dated 17.03.2020 as under paragraph-7, it has been
stated that the Control Order, 2001 was not notified in
the State of Jharkhand.
30. It is further evident from paragraph-13 that the
Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2017 was promulgated and framed in
the State of Jharkhand in the year 2017 in exercise of
power vested under clause 9 of the Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2015 which has been framed
under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
For ready reference, both the paragraphs reads as
under:
"7. That in reply to question no. (iv) formulated by
the Hon'ble Court by order dated 15.1.2020 the
control order, 2001 was not notified in the State of
Jharkhand.
13. That Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2017 was promulgated
and framed in the State of Jharkhand in the year
2017 in exercise of power vested under clause 9 of
the Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2015 which has been framed under Section 3 of
the Essential Commodities Act, 1955."
31. The question, therefore, will be that when the
aforesaid control order came into being in the year
2017 then how the licence was cancelled on
15.09.2010.
32. The respondent-State is not in a position to explain
the same and the same cannot be explained in view of
the submission of the State about the promulgation of
the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2017 which was promulgated and
framed in the year 2017 in the State of Jharkhand.
33. It would be evident from the order of cancellation of
PDS licence that the PDS licence was cancelled in view
of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001
but when the aforesaid control order was not in
existence the day when the PDS licence was cancelled
rather the same has been promulgated and framed in
the year 2017 then how such power has been exercised.
34. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the day
when the PDS licence of the writ petitioner got
cancelled, the concerned authority who has cancelled
the said licence was having no power to take such
decision.''
14. Since it has been specifically stated in the supplementary counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on 07.12.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 4466
of 2018 that the State of Jharkhand had not notified any Control Order pursuant
to promulgation of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 by the
Central Government and the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2017 was framed and notified under section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 in exercise of power vested under clause 9 of the
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 in the year 2017 i.e
after the dates of passing of the respective impugned orders cancelling the
P.D.S licenses of the petitioners by the licensing authorities, this Court is of the
view that the impugned orders cancelling the P.D.S licenses of the petitioners
are without jurisdiction as it is a trite law that if any action is taken by an
administrative/quasi judicial authority without any mandate of law, the same is
a nullity as it exercises powers conferred by a statute.
15. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure-2),
22.04.2015 (Annexure-12), 21.03.2015 (Annexure-1), 20.05.2016 (Annexure-7)
& 29.09.2014 (Annexure-5) passed by the licensing authorities as well as the
impugned orders dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure-3), 04.09.2018 (Annexure-13),
20.11.2018 (Annexure-3), 16.12.2016 (Annexure-8) & 28.09.2017 (Annexure-6)
passed by the appellate authorities in the respective writ petitions are hereby
quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure-9)
passed by the revisional authority in W.P.(C) No. 225 of 2019 is also quashed
and set aside. The licensing authorities are directed to issue orders for restoring
the P.D.S licenses of the petitioners within four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
16. All these writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
Satish/A.F.R (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
