Patna High Court
Sitaram Sah vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 February, 2010
Author: B. P. Verma
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, Birendra Prasad Verma
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6091 OF 1993
Raj Laxmi Agency, A proprietorship firm through its
Proprietor Shri Banwari Mandal, son of Shri Ram Dhani
Mandal, resident of Naya Tola, Munger.
.......Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Munger.
3. Shri Mahavir Prasad, Additional District Magistrate
(Law & Order), Munger, ..................Respondents.
With
CWJC No.7662 of 1993
Brajeshwar Deyal, son of Late Akhileshwar Deyal, resident
of A.P. Colony, P.S. Rampur, District-Gaya....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Transport Officer, Gaya.
..........Respondents.
With
CWJC No.7967 of 1993
M/s Sahu Agency, A Proprietorship firm through its
Proprietor Shri Parmanand Sahu, son of Late Badri Prasad
Sahu, resident of Chotti Keshopur, Jamalpur, Munger.
......Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Munger.
3. The Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Munger.
4. The Executive Magistrarte-cum-Incharge, District
Supply Officer, Munger. .....................Respondents.
With
CWJC No.7969 of 1993
Sitaram Sah, son of Late Kanhaiya Sah, resident of Chotti
Keshopur, Jamalpur, Munger........................Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Munger.
3. The Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Munger.
4. The Executive Magistrate-cum-Incharge District Supply
Officer, Munger. ................................Respondents.
For The Petitioners : - None.
For The Respondents :-None.
2
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA Sj Shiva Kirti Singh & No body appears on behalf of the petitioners or B. P. Verma,JJ.
on behalf of the respondents.
2. These writ petitions are to be heard together because they involve a common issue-whether in terms of Clause 11 (2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, the authorities could have suspended the licence of the petitioners-dealers without giving any show cause notice.
3. Although, no body appears on behalf of petitioners, but answer to the issue involved lies in the very provision of Clause 11, particularly, Sub Clause (2) which deals with suspension of licence. Clause 11 may be extracted for easy reference:
11. (1) If any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under the Essential Commodities Act,1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) his licence may be cancelled or suspended with regard to one or more trade articles by an order in writing of the Licensing Authority and an entry will be made in his licence relating to such suspension or cancellation.
(2) No order of cancellation shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity stating his 3 case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of proceeding of cancellation of licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of statings his case. Such suspension shall be limited only to those trade articles regarding which contravention has been made by the licensee.
4. A bare reading of Sub Clause (2) makes it abundantly clear that by express provision in the statutory order, the Principles of Natural Justice requiring show cause for the purpose of suspension of licence has been curtailed to a limited extent. The law is well settled, if a statute is silent then before passing of an adverse order Principles of Natural Justice will be applicable unless they are ousted by necessary implication.
5. In the present case, there is explicit ouster of Natural Justice requiring show cause notice to a limited extent. Such provision is within the power of the competent authority which has issued the order in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, on merits there does not appear to be any reason to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petitions that show cause notice was required under Clause 11(2) of the order before suspending the licence of the concerned dealer. Of course, after 90 days, the suspension order would come to an end unless the licence itself was cancelled within that time after a show cause notice. 4
6. In such circumstance, prima facie, we would find no merits in these writ petitions. However, since, no body has appeared on behalf of the petitioners, we do not express any final opinion on merits, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no option but to dismiss the writ petitions. We order accordingly.
.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) Patna High Court The 19th February, 2010 N.A.F.R./m.p.