IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) NO. 127 OF 2006
Parsuram Kapri ... ... PETITIONER
-V e r s u s -
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate.
Mr. Indu Shekhar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: J.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
04/26.04.2010
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their
consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that his
P.D.S. Licence has been cancelled by issue of Order dated 25.04.2004, as
contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition without giving any notice to
show-cause or a chance of being heard and also in violation of Clause
11(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 which
clearly envisages that no order of cancellation shall be made under this
Clause unless licencee has been given reasonable opportunity stating his
case against the proposed cancellation.
From perusal of Annexure-3, the impugned order, it appears
that the said order of cancellation has been passed considering the fact
that earlier also, in the year 2004, the licence of the petitioner was
suspended and he was warned at that stage but he did not mend himself.
This impugned Order does not show that before canceling the P.D.S.
Licence of the petitioner, he was given any notice to show cause.
In the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents-
State have tried to improve their case by stating that before passing the
order as contained in Annexure-3 cancelling licence, he was asked to
show-cause but he did not comply the order and, thereafter, the impugned
order of cancellation has been passed. These facts stated in the counter
affidavit does not bear in the impugned order cancelling licence. Therefore,
this statement that the notice was given to the petitioner, cannot be
accepted.
In a similar matter, this Court, in the case of Sanjay umar
Sahu @ Sanjay Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in
2006(4 JCR 279, has held that cancellation of P.D.S. Licence under the
Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, the cancellation of
licence without following the procedures provided under the Unifiation
Order, cannot be sustained in law.
Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, this
writ petition is allowed. The Order dated 25.04.2004, passed by the S.D.O.
Dumka, as contained in Annexure-3 and the appellate Order dated
23.03.2005, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, as contained in
Annexure-4, are hereby quashed. However, liberty is given to the
respondents that if they want to take any action against the petitioner, they
may do so after issuance of notice and after complying the provisions of
the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 and after
following principles of natural justice.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J.)
RC