IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3822 of 2010 1. M/S Keshri Cement Supply Co. Having Office At Amla Toli ,Buxar Through Its Proprietor, Jaganath Prasad Keshri,S/O Late Mahadev Ram Keshri, R/O Moh Amla Toli, P.S.& Distt- Buxar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner Department Of Food &Consumer Protection Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate Buxar 3. The Sub Divisional Officer Buxar 4. The District Supply Officer Chousa, Buxar 5. The Block Supply Officer Chousa, Buxar ----------- 5 08.09.2011 Heard Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Apurva Kumar, learned Assisting counsel to S.C. 10 for the State. The writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the communication bearing letter No. 040057 dated 14.1.2010 issued by the respondent District Supply Officer, Buxar, whereby the petitioner has been informed of the punishment having been imposed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Buxar in his order dated 12.1.2010 (incorrectly mentioned as 12.1.2009), by issuance of a warning and forfeiture of the security deposit of the petitioner with a further direction of installment of nozzle based system mechanism at his dealership. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm dealing in wholesale supply of kerosene oil having its shop at Chausa in the district of Buxar. The petitioner was granted license under the erstwhile Bihar Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 and which has since been repealed and replaced by the Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 1984. The petitioner is also registered under the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Rules framed thereunder. Under the provisions of the 2 petroleum rules the District Magistrate has been delegated with the powers of issuance of petroleum storage license which inter alia also includes kerosene oil. Thus, the petitioner is a valid Licencee under the 1984 order as well as under the Petroleum rules. An inspection was conducted by the Block Supply Officer, Chausa on 3.11.2009 and consequent whereupon the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 23.11.2009 issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar, the licensing authority setting out the allegations on the basis of the report given by the Sub-Divisional Officer in his letter dated 4.11.2009. The petitioner filed his response to the show cause on 17.12.2009 and again on 19.12.2009 rebutting the charges. The petitioner was thereafter served with the letter dated 14.01.2010 of the District Supply Officer, Buxar informing him about the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar, upon consideration of his response as contained in Annexures- 2 and 2/A to the writ petition. The petitioner by the said letter dated 14.01.2010 of the District Supply Officer, Buxar placed at Annexure-3 of the writ petition was informed about the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar. A perusal of the letter of the District Supply Officer manifests that of the ten charges set out against the petitioner, the District Magistrate had only found the charges placed at Serial Nos. 1 to 3 of Annexure-1 as proved. As the letter dated 14.01.2010 was a mere communication of the imposition of penalty on the petitioner under the orders of the District Magistrate dated 12.01.2010, this Court directed the learned State counsel to produce the order dated 12.01.2010 for 3 consideration by the Court and in response whereof a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the District Supply Officer enclosing certain file notings. The said file noting have been enclosed at Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit and on its last page there is recommendation of the Additional Collector to the District Magistrate in relation to the petitioner pointing out that although the charges set out at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 are not serious nevertheless the irregularities are proved. The Additional Collector on the aforesaid conclusion has recommended for forfeiture of the security deposit of the petitioner with stern warning. The order passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar thereon is even more interesting. The Licensing Authority while exercising the quasi judicial powers vested in him, has simply approved the recommendation of the Additional Collector without dealing with the same and without expressing his opinion. Neither the recommendation of the Additional Collector nor its approval by the District Magistrate in any manner demonstrates an application of mind by either of the authorities. It is not even clear whether the authorities had addressed themselves to the explanation given by the petitioner in response to the charge. The exercise of power is mechanical and difficult to be upheld. A quasi judicial exercise cannot be exercised in such mechanical manner where the exercise has been reduced to a mockery. Even the direction of the District Magistrate, Buxar requiring the petitioner to install the Nozzle Based System is without jurisdiction and is fortified by the letter dated 28.06.2011 (Annexure-H) issued by the Principal Secretary in the Department of Food and Consumer 4 Protection requesting the Co-ordinator and General Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation to take steps for installation of Nozzle Based System in the premises of the oil dealers meaning thereby the responsibility has been cast upon the oil companies to install the said system and not the dealers. The District Magistrate, Buxar without applying his mind has mechanically proceeded to issue the directions which again is unsustainable. For the reasons aforesaid the order dated 12.1.2010 of the District Magistrate, Buxar as communicated vide letter dated 14.1.2010 of the Block Supply Officer and placed at Annexure-3 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)