Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 August, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100400
CWP-26429-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
215 CWP-26429-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.08.2024
Harbans Lal
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bansal, DAG, Punjab
***
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India, petitioner has approached this Court inter
alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders
dated 03.04.2019 and 12.05.2022, Annexures P-2 and P-8, respectively,
passed by the respondent authorities under the Punjab Targeted Public
Distribution System (Licencing & Control) Order, 2016 (for short "Order
of 2016").
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had a
licence under Order of 2016 and was running a ration depot at
Distribution Centre, Gumtala District Amritsar, but due to a disturbed
state of mind, by letter dated 20.01.2019, Annexure P-1, he requested for
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100400
the cancellation of the licence, which was accepted vide impugned order,
Annexure P-2, by the District Controller, Food Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs, Amritsar-respondent No.5. Counsel submits that the
petitioner withdrew the request vide letter dated 06.02.2020, Annexure P-
3, and filed an appeal before respondent No.3, however, the appeal was
rejected vide impugned order Annexure P-8. Placing reliance upon the
judgment dated 18.01.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No.266 of 2023,
titled as Nirmaljit Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, he contends
that respondent No.5 was not the officer authorized to cancel the licence
under the Order of 2016.
3. Upon notice by this Court, writ petition has been contested
by the respondents by filing a reply, wherein, it has been submitted that
the petitioner had voluntarily sought cancellation of the licence. A stand
has been taken that respondent No.5 was the licencing authority under the
Order of 2016. However, State counsel could not dispute the judgment
passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nirmaljit Kaur's case
cited (supra).
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. In Nirmaljit Kaur's case cited (supra), this Court passed the
following order:-
"The challenge in these writ petitions filed
in the nature of Certiorari is to the orders passed
by District Controller Food, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs, Amritsar, (for short 'DFSC)
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100400
suspending the supply of Ration to the Depot of
the petitioners, cancelling the licences of the
Depot, cancelling the supply to the Depot and
show cause notices issued for cancellation of
Depot.
For the sake of convenience, the facts are
being taken from CWP No. 266 of 2023.
The brief facts are that the petitioner-Smt.
Nirmaljeet Kaur was allotted Depot. Jagdev
Singh and others made complaint against Depot
holder. In the enquiry conducted it was found that
depot holder was supplying less than the
stipulated quantity of wheat and behaving badly
with consumers. The licence of Depot Holder was
suspended. Aggrieved of that the present petition
has been filed.
Learned State counsel submits that the
orders are challenged on the ground that DFSC
had no jurisdiction to pass orders. He has
produced notification dated 5.1.2023 amending
the Punjab Targeted Public Distribution System
(Licensing and Control) order, 2016, whereby
word ''District Magistrate'' has been substituted
with ''Licensing Authority''. He further on
instructions submits that in view of amendment
the orders passed by DFSC cancelling/suspending
the licences and show cause notices have been
revoked and liberty is sought to pass a fresh
order/issue show cause notices if need so arises.
In view of statement made by learned State
counsel, the petitions are disposed of.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100400
Needless to say that the respondents would
be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law if
need so arises.
Since the main cases have been disposed
of, pending application, if any is rendered
infructuous.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the
files of other connected cases."
6. From the above reproduction, it is apparent that the District
Controller, respondent No.5, was not the authority competent to take
action under the Order of 2016 and the power had been vested in the
District Magistrate prior to the issuance of the notification dated
05.01.2023. As the impugned order, Annexure P-2 was passed by an
officer who had no jurisdiction to do so, this Court is left with no option
but to accept the prayer made in the petition.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Orders, Annexures P-2
and P-8 are quashed. However, liberty is granted to the licensing
authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
8. It is clarified that this order would not imply an automatic
revival of the license and the restoration of the licence of the petitioner
would be dependent on the outcome of the final order to be passed by the
licensing authority.
06.08.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
pooja saini JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
