Calcutta High Court
Sahadat Hossain vs Sub-Divisional Controller Of F. And S., ... on 11 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988CAL44, AIR 1988 CALCUTTA 44, (1988) EASTCRIC 212 (1988) EFR 475, (1988) EFR 475
JUDGMENT Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. The present writ petition was moved challenging the impugned order of cancellation of M. R. Dealership Agreement of the petitioner dated Sept. 22/23, 1980 passed by the Sub-divisional Controller Food & Supplies, Katwa invoking Clause 18 of the agreement which is annexure 'D' to the present Writ Petition.
2. By the said impugned order the authority had considered that the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner dated August 18, 1980 in reply to the impugned show cause notice dated Aug. 2, 1980 was not at all satisfactory as the petitioner had drawn sugar for 3200 units, but did not supply 425 units from July 11, 1980 to July 27, 1980, depriving the consuming Ration Card Holders. Moreover, the petitioner supplied sugar twice in a week to certain Ration Card Holders which was also most irregular and invoked Clause 18 of the terms and conditions of the Agreement and passed the order of cancellation, which was to be effective after the expiry of 30 days from the issue of the said notice.
3. At the time of issuance of the Rule on Oct. 7, 1980 status quo was granted by Sambhu Chandra Ghose, J. (as his Lordship then was) and on Dec. 3, 1980, the interm order was vacated by B.C. Basak, J. in the presence of Mr. D.P. Mazumder, learned Advocate for the State respondents. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing by S.K. Mookherjee, J. and by me on different dates and no one is appearing on behalf of the State, today, when the matter is being finally disposed of today, as no affidavit-in-opposition appears to have been filed on behalf of the Sub-divisional Controller, Hood & Supplies dealing and denying all the material allegations made in the writ petition.
4. Mr. Suchit Kumar Banerji, learned Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition submitted in the first place, that the entire enquiry was conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
The charge-sheet contained vague charges and copy of the enquiry report had not been supplied to the writ petitioner, as such, the petitioner could not give effective reply to the charges for which natural justice had been violated.
5. After placing the charges from the charge-sheet dated August 2, 1980, which is annexure 'B' to the writ petition, it has been submitted by Mr. Suchit Kumar Banerji, for the petitioner that the petitioner has been found guilty of an offence in respect of the charges for which he has not been charged as the same would be evident from the charge-sheet and the final order of cancellation of M. R. Dealership Agreement.
6. Secondly, he submitted that the authorities have proceeded in the matter with closed mind, all through only to inflict punishment upon the petitioner, as same would be evident from the fact of the wording of the charge-sheet as well as the final order.
7. In support of his contention he has drawn my attention to a Division Bench decision of this court, Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies v. Amulya Ratan (In which I was a party) where the Division Bench observed; as follows : "generally this court should not interfere with an order of cancellation of M. R. Dealership, but whereas in the instant case, the authority concerned acted arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice, this court should interfere."
8. Referring to the said decision, Mr. Banerji, submitted that as in the instant case, M. R. Dealership has been cancelled by the respondents on the basis of charges, which were not communicated to the writ petitioner, and without supplying the copy of the report and in violation the principles of natural justice this court may be pleased to struck it down.
9. He has also referred to another single Bench decision of this court, reported in (1984). 1 Cal HC (N) 240 in the case of Abdul Azim v. State of West Bengal, wherein Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J. in accepting the contentions of Mr. Kashi Kanta Maitra, held that although the principles of natural justice cannot be brought under a straight jacket but it is to be modulated in accordance with the situation.
10. In the facts of that case before his Lordship, the petitioner by not giving copy of the inspection of the report, in fact, had denied the principles of natural justice, as it has been held in para 7 of the said judgment.
11. I, respectfully agree with the aforesaid two views expressed in the Division Bench as well as the single Bench judgments referred to above.
12. Accordingly, in my view, writ petition is entitled to succeed.
13. The Rule is made absolute.
14. The impugned order of cancellation of the Agreement dated Sept. 22/23. 1980 is liable to be set aside, by issue of appropriate writ of certiorari.
15. Let a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus issue restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effects to the order of cancellation which is annexure 'D' to the writ petition and is dated Sept. 22/23, 1980.
16. Since no one is appearing for the respondents, let a plain copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioner on the usual undertaking to apply and obtain certified copy of the judgment.