IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2961 of 2010 1. SURENDRA CHOUDHARY S/O SITARAM CHOUDHARY R/O VILL- JALALPUR,PO- KHANPURA,P.S-GIRIYAK,DISTT- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJGIR, NALANDA ----------- For the Petitoner:- Mr. Dronacharya, Adv. For the State:- Mr. A. Amanullah, Adv. Mr. Anuj Kumar, Adv. ------------- 2. 13.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a P.D.S. dealer, is aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.2005 of the Sub Divisional Officer cancelling his licence as affirmed in appeal by the District Magistrate on 31.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with his reply to the second show cause notice the petitioner had submitted his stock register and distribution register which were got examined through the Incharge Civil-cum-Executive Magistrate who furnished his comments upon the same of alleged irregularities and on basis of which the finding has been arrived at in the impugned order. No copy of this report was furnished to him with an opportunity to meet the same, violating the principles of natural justice. Reliance has been placed on 2011(2) PLJR (SC) 101 (Union of India & 2 Ors. Vs. S.K. Kapoor). Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity by a show cause notice, consideration of his reply, followed by a second show cause notice. There has been no infirmity in the decision making process. It was a relationship of a Principal and Agent and therefore the writ Court may not interfere in the matter any further if there has been fairness and reasonableness in action on part of the respondents who alone are best suited to decide who should be appointed as dealer for fulfilling their social objectives. The show cause notice alleged closure of the shop on the day of inspection. Distribution of Kerosene oil after 3-4 months to consumer and sale of Kerosene oil in excess of the fixed price. Closure of the shop for one single day, may not justify an action serious as cancellation of the dealership, making the punishment disproportionate. In any event the defence of his illness was put forward and which does not appear to have been disbelieved by any finding. Likewise, there is no finding of any sale being made in excess of the designated rates. But, the appellate order adequately notices that 3 discrepancy had been found in the stock register and the distribution register. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court that there was at best a difference of one litre. To this Court, from Page-3 of the appellate order it does not appear to be so. There appears to be major variation in the stock register and the distribution register in so far as the entry of 31.1.2004 are concerned. The stock register and the distribution register were maintained by the petitioner himself. The grounds culled out by the respondents from the same was not any new material taking the petitioner by surprise amounting to admission of evidence behind his back to indict him. The case of S.K. Kapoor (surpa) relied upon has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case, a copy of a report furnished by the Union Public Service Commission in context of a departmental proceeding had not been furnished to the delinquent. The enquiry report was an independent material based on the opinion and reasons of the author of the report. Presently, it is the materials already known to the petitioner from which a conclusion has been culled out only. The Court has serious reservations if the 4 standards to be applied in a departmental proceeding in a relationship between a master and a servant shall apply with the same force in a relationship between a Principal and an Agent. If the Principal looses faith in the Agent, the relationship being contractual in nature, can the agent urge that the loss of faith in him by the Principal is not justified and the Agent must be thrust on the Principal. Applying the principle of severance to the impugned order, the Court upholds the impugned order. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)