Patna High Court - Orders
Kapil Deo Bhagat vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 October, 2020
Author: Prabhat Kumar Jha
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13828 of 2017
======================================================
Kapil Deo Bhagat, son of Late Muni Lal Bhagat, resident of Village- Belhar,
P.S. Belhar, District Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Collector, District Banka.
3. The Licensing Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer, Banka.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Belhar, District Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, A.C. to A.A.G. 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
7 19-10-2020Heard Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned A.C. to A.A.G. 5 through video conferencing.
The petitioner moved this Court for quashing the order dated 24.03.2017, passed by the Collector, Banka in Supply Appeal No.27 of 2014-15 and further to quash the order dated 09.06.2014, as contained in Memo No.431, by which the Sub-divisional Officer, Banka cancelled the licence of Public Distribution System of the petitioner.
The brief facts is that the petitioner got Licence No.28/2012 to run a Jan Vitran Pranali shop in Panchayat Belhar, District Banka. The petitioner received letter no.156, dated 02.02.2014 from Sub-divisional Officer, Banka calling Patna High Court CWJC No.13828 of 2017(7) dt.19-10-2020 2/5 upon the petitioner to submit stock and distribution register of last five years along with Form 8/20 on 04.02.2014. The petitioner submitted his explanation along with stock and distribution register. The petitioner informed that Form No.8/20 was deposited in the office of the Block Supply Officer, Belhar on monthly basis and no receipt was granted, therefore, he is unable to deposit the same. The petitioner again received a letter as contained in Memo No.193, dated 14.02.2014 calling upon the petitioner that why distribution form, unit register and quota listing have not yet been deposited. The petitioner again filed his show cause. The petitioner was again called upon vide letter as contained in Memo No.37, dated 28.02.2014 to submit show cause within seven days failing which his licence would be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his show cause on 20.03.2014, but the Sub-divisional Officer by his order dated 09.06.2014, as contained in Memo No.431, cancelled the licence of the petitioner holding that the explanation of the petitioner is baseless and unsatisfactory. The petitioner preferred Supply Appeal No.27 of 2014-15 before the Collector, Banka but the Collector, Banka dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Banka cancelling the licence of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13828 of 2017(7) dt.19-10-2020 3/5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received three notices on different dates but the enquiry report is not annexed with the notices. This Court in number of cases 2013 (3) PLJR 249 (Krishna Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.6388 of 2013), 2017 (4) PLJR 794 (Kusheshwar Paswan vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) (CWJC No.9294 of 2014) has held that notice to a person who is to be deprived of his right to livelihood, has to be issued in such a manner so that he may be able to defend his case in full. If the notice does not contain the allegation, the statement of the allegationists and the enquiry report thereupon the licensee would not be able to give satisfactory explanation in absence of such relevant documents and that amounts to non-providing of sufficient opportunity to the person and thus, it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Collector has also perfunctorily without considering the grounds dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, therefore, the orders are not sustainable.
It is true and settled law that when a notice is issued to the licensee for cancellation of his licence on infringement of any orders/directions on the basis of allegations or the enquiry report thereon, the notice must contain the statement of the Patna High Court CWJC No.13828 of 2017(7) dt.19-10-2020 4/5 allegationists and the enquiry report, if any enquiry is held so that a licensee must give full and satisfactory reply. If the statements of the allegationists and the enquiry report on such allegation are not given to the licensee, the licensee cannot give satisfactory explanation for any such violation of rules, orders and directions and he shall be prejudiced which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, but from perusal of Annexure-5, the notice given to the petitioner on 28.02.2014, it is evident that the petitioner was called upon to submit the different documents as on inspection made by the licensing authority different deficiencies were found. What deficiencies were found in inspection on 02.02.2014 are fully described in the notice. The petitioner also submitted his explanation as contained in Annexure-6 and admitted his fault for non- availability of the documents and non-submission of coupons in the office of the Block Supply Officer after distribution of food grains, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner received the notice without the enquiry report and he was prejudiced by not filing satisfactory explanation on account of non-supply of enquiry report rather it appears that the petitioner filed his exhaustive show cause and at the same time admitted his fault for non-submission of distributed coupons after distribution of Patna High Court CWJC No.13828 of 2017(7) dt.19-10-2020 5/5 food grains. Food grains should be delivered only after submission of coupons after distribution of food grains. Form No.8/20 is fundamentals of allotment of food grains but even after repeated demand, the petitioner did not submit the required form and thus, the licensing authority found that the petitioner not only violated the laws and circulars in distributing the food grains but he has failed the different welfare schemes in which food grains are distributed and only thereafter the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, it is observed, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that if the petitioner files revision as provided under the rule against the order of the appellate authority, the revisional authority may consider the revision petition on its own merit without unsuiting the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/-
U