IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16638 of 2009
1. MAHESH KANT JHA S/O BHAIYAJEE JHA R/O VILL.- DABHARI,
P.S.- PANDAUL, DISTT.- MADHUBANI
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR MADHUBANI
4. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER HARLAKHI AND MADHEPUR BLOCK,
DISTT.- MADHUBANI
-----------
2. 6.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the State.
The petitioner, a P.D.S. licensee, is aggrieved
by the order dated 9.8.2008, cancelling his licence for
alleged violations of the terms and conditions as
affirmed in appeal on 20.6.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly
acknowledges that two persons have deposed during
inquiry that the petitioner was distributing two litres
instead of three litres of Kerosene Oil. If that be
correct, this Court cannot go into the sufficiency of the
evidence in exercise of its power of judicial review.
The Court shall only see whether there is evidence or
do the findings suffer from perversity. On the own
showing of the petitioner, the findings did not suffer
from any perversity.
The second ground was that the shop was
found closed on the date of inspection.
Reliance is placed on a decision reported in
2
1996(2) PLJR 53, to submit that cancellation of the
licence for one day closure was too harsh a
punishment.
The Court in exercise of its power of judicial
review is primarily concerned with the decision
making process and not the final decision itself unless
it suffers from grave arbitrariness, illogical or
perversity. The petitioner acknowledges that he did
not produce any evidence before the S.D.O. or the
Collector in support of his plea that on the date of
inspection he had gone to the State Bank for
preparation of a Bank draft which was deposited the
same day in the Block Development Office. If that be
so, the petitioner has only to blame himself for the
findings of the authority that his explanation on that
account was not acceptable.
Counsel for the State rightly submits that
whether the punishment was excessive or not should
be left to the authorities to decide.
The petitioner is stated to be an agent of the
State Government for distribution of essential
commodities to the down trodden Section of society.
The agency is governed by a statutory relationship. It
shall be primarily for the Principal to decide if he
wants to continue with the services of the agent or
3
not.
The impugned order therefore calls for no
interference by the Court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. To that extent, the writ application is
dismissed.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ
application, if the petitioner represents on the ground
that the punishment was excessive not commensurate
with the charges against him, nothing precludes the
respondents from considering matters in their own
wisdom in accordance with law, preferably without
undue delay.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)