IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3284 of 2011
Ruksa Sway Sahayata Samuh (SHG) ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & another ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : M/s Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Sarfraz Akhtar, Mithilesh Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. R. Mukhopadhya, S.C.II
th
03/Dated: 13 July, 2011
1.
The present petition has been preferred against the order passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur dated 6th June, 2011 (Annexure3), whereby,
the license given to the petitioner for running the fair price shop was
cancelled.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly submitted that no
adequate notice is given to the petitioner before passing the impugned
order. It is an admitted fact, even as per paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit
that only two days’ time was given to give reply of the show cause notice,
issued by the respondents and in fact, the petitioner has given a reply, it has
not been considered, at all, by the respondents. In fact, time given by the
respondents is highly insufficient, which tantamounts to violation of
principle of natural justice. Moreover, several documents have been relied
upon while passing the impugned order by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur,
but, not a single document has been given to the petitioner and, therefore
also, there is violation of principle of natural justice. Some report has been
called for by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur and the same has never been
given to the petitioner and it has been relied upon while passing the
impugned order. Similarly, some statements of the alleged ration card
holders have been recorded, but, none of the statements have been supplied
to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to defend its case and,
therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the
matter may be remanded to the concerned appellate authority so as to give
adequate opportunity to the petitioner to represent its case.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted
that notice was given to the petitioner, as stated in the counter affidavit,
before passing the impugned order. The reply was given after the time limit
2
is over and, therefore, the same has not been considered by the respondents
It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the
documents, relied upon by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur while passing
the impugned order, have not been supplied to the petitioner. Nonetheless,
the appeal is provided against the impugned order and, therefore, the
petition may not be entertained by this Court, at this stage.
4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur dated 6th June, 2011 at
Annexure3 mainly for the following facts and reasons:
(i) The petitioner was given license in the year 2009 to run the fair price
shop. Thereafter, the petitioner continued with fair price shop, in
question, for several months. Not on a single occasion, any breach of
any of the conditions of the license have been found out by the
respondents. Thus, the petitioner was working in accordance with law.
(ii) It appears that suddenly a notice was given by pointing out several
irregularities in running the fair price shop and only two days’ time was
given to give reply of the said show cause notice.
(iii) It also appears from the facts of the case that the reply of the show
cause notice was given by the petitioner after the time limit, given by
the respondents i.e. after two days of the receipt of the copy of the
notice. Looking to these facts, it appears that the concerned respondent
authority, who has given notice, has lost sight of the fact that such a
short time ought not to have been given to the petitioner. Looking to the
nature of allegation labelled against the petitioner, at least ten days’
time ought to have been given to the petitioner so that the petitioner
can adequately represent its case before the concerned respondent
authorities. Too short time to give a reply of the show cause notice
tantamounts to violation of principle of natural justice.
(iv) It further appears from the facts of the case that while passing the
impugned order, the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur has relied upon some
report privately called for by him. Neither the copy nor the gist of the
report has been supplied to the petitioner. Whenever, the respondents
are relying upon any document while passing the impugned order, a
copy whereof or summary thereof ought to have been supplied to the
petitioner. Likewise, several statements of the ration card holders have
3
been relied upon. Nobody knows who says what about the petitioner
and nobody knows whether they are really ration card holders or not. If
the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur is relying upon this statement for
cancelling the fair price shop license then these statements or summary
thereof ought to have been supplied to the petitioner. In the facts of the
present case, no such statement or summary thereof has been supplied
to the petitioner.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is gross violation of
principle of natural justice while passing the impugned order. I therefore,
quash and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur
dated 6th June, 2011 at Annexure3 to the memo of the present petition.
Liberty is reserved with the respondents to take appropriate steps against
the petitioner, if the respondents want to take such action, at least after
following the principle of natural justice.
6. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Ajay