IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 1006 of 2011 --- Rajendra Ram ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra ... ... Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA --- For the Petitioner : M/s. Nilesh Kumar, Vijayant Verma & S. B. Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, G. A. --- 2. 23.03.2011
: Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows: A
show casue notice dated 27.10.2010 was issued to the petitioner
saying that the Superintendent of Police has recommended for
cancellation of licence and the villagers have made complaint to the
Deputy Commissioner. The show cause notice was absolutely vague.
The alleged violation were not indicated. However, petitioner filed
show cause in view of the allegations made in the F.I.R.. The licence
has been cancelled on the recommendation of the Superintendent of
Police and Deputy Commissioner. It is said that the petitioner could
not prove his innocence only by denying the allegations. The licence
has been cancelled under the P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001 (as
amended) whereas, this order has not been made applicable in this
State in the absence of the orders required to be issued by the State
Government, under the relevant provisions of this Order. Filing of
appeal before the Deputy Commissioner will be an empty formality.
Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned State counsel on the other
hand submitted that in the absence of counter affidavit, he is not in a
position to accept or controvert the submissions made in the writ
It appears that the show cause notice was vague, and it
was issued on the recommendation of Superintendent of Police. It
further appears that the licence has been cancelled on the
recommendation of the Superintendent of Police endorsed by the
Deputy Commissioner. The complaint made by the villagers was not
mentioned in the show cause notice.
In the circumstances, the impugned order dated
10.01.2011 is set aside with the liberty to the licensing authority to
proceed in accordance with law.
Before parting with this case, I am constrained to observe
that it is unfortunate that on the one hand it is indisputable that the
Public Distribution System is not working properly in this State and on
the other hand the concerned authorities have no elementary
knowledge of law. It has also been noticed in one case that the P.D.S.
(Control) Order 2001 is not workable in the absence of the orders
required to be issued under that order, by the State Government. All
this raises a big question on the efficiency and intentions of the State
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Food and
Civil Supply Department, and the Chief Secretary, Government of
With these observations and liberty, this writ petition is
(R. K. Merathia, J.)
R. Shekhar Cp 2