IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2049 of 2009 ANAND JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 11.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner being aggrieved by an order dated 26th June, 2008 passed by the licensing authority, the Sub-divisional Officer, Phulparas and its affirmance in the appellate order dated 22.11.2008 passed by the Collector of Madhubani District has moved this Court on the ground that though he was subjected to a show cause notice pointing out the anomalies but when the petitioner had filed his show cause reply the same was not considered and a mechanical order rejecting such show cause reply was passed in the process of cancellation of licence. He has also submitted that the appellate order of the Collector is suffering from same vice of non-application of mind, inasmuch as he too has not considered the explanation of the petitioner. 2 In order to appreciate the aforementioned aspect one will have to go into the content of the show cause notice, as contained in Annexure 2, wherein the following allegations were made: “fuEufyf[kr vfu;ferrk@fLFkfr ik;h xbZ %& 1- nqdku cUn ik;k x;k A 2- nqdku ds lkeus esa dksbZ lwpuk iV~V iznf’kZd ugha ik;k x;k A vki cxy esa vius futh iDds ?kj feL=h ls cuok jgs FksA nwdku ls lVk vkidk fdjkuk dk nqdku [kqyk Fkk ftlesa ued] lhesUV ] pkoy rjktw cSV[kjk Fkk] cqyokus ij vki vk;s vkils Hk.Mkj forj.k iath tkWp gsrq ekWaxs tkus ij mls ykus gsrq vki vius ?kj ds vUnj pys x;s dkQh cqykus ij ckgj ugha vk;sA dqN LFkkuh; yksx tek gks x;s cryk;k x;k gS fd vki ?kj ls iath ysdj fiNys xyh ls fudy x;s] vuUr esa mifLFkr yksxksa dks cryk;k x;k fd fcdzsrk Jh >k dks cqyokbZ tk; dh os dkxtkr iath tkWp gsrq fn[kkos vO;Fkk iz’kklu dks ck/; gksdj nqdku 'khy dj izkFkfedh ntZ djuh gksxhA Jh 'kf’k >k tks Jh vkuUn >k ds cM+s HkkbZ gS us cryk;k dh fcdzsrk eqf[k;k Jh ukxsUnz feJ ds ;gkWa pys x;s gS mUgsa cqykdj yk;k tkrk gSA 3- geyksx djhc 30 feuV rd nqdku ds ckgj cSBs jgs rc vki cqyokus ij dS’k eseks ,oa iath ds lkFk vk;s iqNus ij vkids }kjk cryk;s dh iath ij Hk.Mkj lR;kiu eqf[k;k }kjk gLrk{kfjr djokus gsrq eqf[k;k ds ;gkWa x;s FksA 4- vkids nqdku ds lkFk fuyafcr fcdszrk Jh jke izlkn e.My dk Hkh nqdku laca) gSA nksuks nqdku ds vkoaVu ds fo:) vius ,d gh Hk.Mkj iath j[kk gS ftlds voyksdu esa ;g ik;k x;k dh Hk.Mkj iath ds i"V 32 esa fnukad 08-06-08 dks vUr 'ks"k rsy 410 yhVj ,oa 9-06-08 dks Fkksd fcdzsrk ds ;gkWa ls 1950 fyVj rsy mBko dj 09-06-08 dks izkjEfHkd Hk.Mkj 2360 yhVj izfo"V; fd;kA fnukad 9-06-08 ls fujh{k.k frfFk fnukad 18- 06-08 rd iath esa dksbZ izfo"V; dh xbZ Fkh ftls iz[k.M vkiwfrZ inkf/kdkjh ?kks?kjMhgk }kjk dkV dj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;kA forj.k iath ds voyksdu esa ik;k x;k fd 10-06-08 dks fodzsrk }kjk 22 miHkksxrkvksa dks rhu yhVj dh nju ls forj.k iath esa forj.k ntZ fd;k x;k gS tks forj.k iath ds i`"V 92 esa ns[kk 3 x;kA fdUrq forj.k iath ds dkWye 9 esa bu 22 miHkksxrkvksa ls gLrk{kj@vaxqBk dk fu’kku ugha fy;k x;k gS vkSj [kkyh j[kk x;k Fkk tc fdjklu rsy Fkksd fodzsrk ls 9-6-08 dks izkIr fd;k x;k ,oa fodzsrk }kkjk 10-6-08 dks 22 miHkksxrkvksa dks 66 yhVj rsy dh vkiwfrZ fodzsrk }kjk dh xbZ rks vuq’kklu inkf/kdkjh ds tkWp esa vkdLekr igwWpus ij fodzsrk ds Hkkxdj eqf[k;k ds ?kj ij igwWp dj mBko frfFk ds 10 (nl) fnu ds ckn muds ?kj ij lR;kiu gLrk{kj djokus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha curk gSA tcfd iqNus ij Mhyj us ;g Lohdkj fd;k dh os eqf[k;k ls Hk.Mkj lR;kiu fy[kkus gsrq eqf[k;k ds ?kj ij x;s Fks eqf[k;k ds ?kj ij ugha jgus ds dkj.k lR;kiu gLrkfjr ugha djk;s tk ldsA 5- ekpZ 2008 dk vUR;ksn; en dk xsgWw mBko ds i'pkr vo’ks"k Hk.Mkj 3-78 fd0 gksuk pkfg, tcfd HkkSfrd tkWp esa nwdku esa 5-50 fdyks xsgWw ik;k x;k tks 1 fD0 72 fdyks T;knk ik;k x;k pkoy en esa forj.k ds I’pkr 5 fD0 68 fdyks vo’ks"k gksuk pkfg, tcfd tkWp esa 6 fD0 85 fdyks ik;k x;k ,oa xsgWw@pkoy ds forj.k iath ds dkWye 9 ftlij miHkksxrk dk izkfIr gLrk{kj gksuk pkfg, dks vkids }kjk (fodzsrk) [kkyh j[kk x;k gS tks fcdsrk }kjk miHkksxrk dks vuf;fer vkiwfrZ dj dksbZ bafxr djrk gSA” It is to be borne in mind that such show cause notice was issued on the basis of personal inspection conducted by the licensing authority himself with a team of officials including the Block Supply Officer, Ghoghardiha, Block Supply Officer, Lokahi on 18.6.2008 at 11.55 A.M. Obviously if the petitioner was to assail the personal observation of the conducting team he had to give certain materials which could have shaken the 4 confidence of the Sub-divisional Officer regarding his own observation recorded in the show cause notice. This Court, however, is amazed that whatever the petitioner has said in the explanation was not at all in any way even sufficient to deny the allegation, rather was based on alibi as would be evident from his following explanations: “1- tkWp ds le; esjk nqdku cUn ugha Fkk dsoy eksV dks lVk fn;k x;k Fkk D;ksafd dqN nsj igys o"kkZ vk x;k FkkA 2- nqdku ds lkeus ls izfnZ’kd lwpuk iV dks o"kkZ esa fHkxus ds dkj.k vUnj dj fn;k x;k Fkk tks tkWp ds le; nqdku esa ik;k x;kA rFkk isV [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k 'kkSpky; pyk x;k Fkk blfy, vkus esa nsj gks x;kA 3- fnukad 10-6-2008 dks eqf[k;k tks dks HkaMkj lR;kiu djus dh lwpuk fn;k Fkk dh iq"Vh djus gsrq cqykus x;k FkkA ysfdu eqf[k;k th ugha feys FkksM+k foyEc gks x;kA 4- iwoZ ls gh nksuks nqdku dk iath ,d gh pyk vk jgk gS ysfdu dHkh Hkh eq>s vyx vyx HkaMkj iath ,oa forj.k iath j[kus dk vkns’k fdlh Hkh inkf/kdkjh egksn; }kjk ugha fn;k x;kA izkjfEHkd HkaMkj 23-60 fy0 fdjklu rsy dh izfof"V;kWa fnukad 10-6-08 fujh{k.k frfFk rd HkaMkj iath ds iUuk u0 33 esa fd;k x;k Fkk] tks iUuk lVk jgus ds dkj.k ,slk gks x;kA dqy 22 miHkksxrkvksa ds dqy 66 fyVj fdjk’ku rsy &3 fyVj dh nj ls dS’keseks ,oa forj.k iath ij gLrk{kj djk dj forj.k fd;kA fdjk’ku lR;kiu djus dh lwpuk esjs }kjk mBko ds ,d nhu ckn gh eqf[k;k th dks fn;k x;k FkkA 5- ekpZ 2008 ds vUuR;ksn; en dk [kk|k;u forj.k ds i'pkr vo’ks"k HkaMkj 3-78-00 xsgwWa ,oa 5-68-500 fd0 xzke pkyo fujh{k.k ds le; HkaMkj esa j[kk gqvk FkkA iwoZ esa [kk|ku ,oa djk’ku rsy dk forj.k dsoy dS’keks ij fu’kku ,oa gLrk{kj fd;k djkrs FksA ckn esa iz[k.M 5 vkiwfrZ inkf/kdkjh egksn; }kjk ekSf[kd vkns’k ij forj.k iath ij miHkksDrvksa ls gLrk{j ,oa fu’kku ysus yxs tks orZeku rd pyk vk jgk gSA Hkfo"; esa esjs }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh xyrh dh iqukZo`fr ugha gksxkA” If this was the explanation of the petitioner to an authority who had himself conducted the inspection, was it not sufficient for such authority to find it out that the explanation given by the petitioner was not inspiring confidence much less requiring to be dealt and considered by a reasoned order. The petitioner did not dispute that a building was being constructed and that the shop was closed or that there was no display board kept before the shop. All that he wanted to say was that there were certain reasons for not doing so. The licensing order and the conditions of the licence do not envisage such explanation from a Public Distribution System dealer. That apart when the authority was satisfied that the petitioner was having two shops; one of P.D.S. and the other a general shop, the reason in the show cause notice itself was sufficient to show that there was justifiable possibility for the licensing 6 authority of being satisfied that the petitioner was not even maintaining the records of stock properly, a conduct which he has noted by the reason of absence of the stock register in the licenced premises. The explanation of the petitioner that the register was lying before the Mukhiya has to be only taken for the purpose of record because the Mukhiya is no one to keep such register. Be that as it may, this Court is satisfied that the allegations against the petitioner was quite serious in nature and that he did not seek to controvert them by either asking any opportunity to lead any evidence as contemplated under Clause 11(2) and accordingly this Court must hold that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to state his case before passing of the order of cancellation. That will not in fact be the end of the matter, inasmuch as the whole issue was examined afresh in appeal at the instance of the petitioner and the appellate authority again having looked into the records had 7 come to the following findings: “mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dks lqukA fuEu U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd tkWp ny }kjk tkWap ds le; nqdku cUnz ik;k x;kA lwpukiV iznf’kZr ugha FkkA dS’keseks] iath vkfn ?kj ds vUnj Fkk ftls ekaxus ij ugha fn[k;k x;k ftlls LFkkuuh; yksx tek gksdj crk;s fd ?kj ls iath ysdj ihNs dh xyh ls fudy x;s gSA muds }kjk ekax dh xbZ fd fodzsrk dks dkxtkr@iath ysdj cqyk;k tk;A tkap ny ds inkf/kdkjh yxHkx 30 feuV rd nqdku ds ckgj izrh{kkjr jgs ,oa ckj ckj Lekfjr djus ds ckn dkQh foyEc ls fodzsrk }kjk iath@dS’k eseks fn[kk;k x;kA iwNus ij fodzsrk }kjk crk;k x;k fd iath ij Hk.Mkj dk lR;kiu@gLrk{kj djkus gsrq eqf[k;k ds ?kj x;s FksA fodszrk Jh >k ds lkFk fuyafcr fcdzsrk Jh jke izlkn eaMy dh Hkh nqdku lEc) gS],oa nksuksa nqdku ds fy, ,d gh Hk.Mkj iath&j[kh xbZ gS] ftlesa fnukad 8-6-08 dk vo’ks"k rsy 410 yhVj ,oa 9-6-08 dks Fkksd fodzsrk ls mBk;k x;k rsy 1950 yhVj dqy izkajfHkd HkaMkfjr rsy 2360 yhVj izfo"V ns[kk x;kA Fkksd fodzsrk ds ;gka ls djklu rsy mBko dh frfFk 9-6-08 ls fujh{k.k dh frfFk 18-6-08 rd iath esa dksbZ izfo"V ugha dh xbZ FkhA ekpZ 2008 dk vUR;ksn; en ds xsagw ds mBko ds I’pkr ,oa forj.k ds ckn vo’ks"k HkaMkj nqdku esa fD0 78 fd0xzk0 gksuk pkfg, tcfd HkkSfrd lR;kiu esa nqdku esa 5 fD0 50 fd0xzk0 ik;k x;k A blh izdkj pkoy en esa gh forj.k ds i'pkr 5 fDoa 68 fd0 xzk0 gksuk pkfg, tcfd HkkSfrd lR;kiu esa 6 fD0 85 fd0 xzk0 ik;k x;kA xsagq@ pkoy forj.k iath ds dkWye &9 dks fodzsrk }kjk [kkyh NksM+k x;k Fkk ftl ij lacaf/kr miHkksDrk ls izkfIr gLrk{kj@ vaxwBs dk fu’kku fy;k tkuk Fkk A fcdzsrk Jh >k cxy esa viuh futh iDdk ?kj feL=h ls cuok jgs FksA nqdku ls lVk fodzsrk dk fdjkuk nqdku [kqyk ns[kk x;k ftlesa ued] flesaV] pkoy]rjktw cV[kkjk ik;k x;kA tks vuqKfIr dh 'kRrksZ ds ?kksj mYya?ku dk ?kksrd gSA fuEu U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ;g Hkh Li”V gS fd 8 vihydRrkZ ls izkIr Li"Vhdj.k ij lE;d lquokbz dk ekSdk nsrs gq, ,oa mudk Li"Vhdj.k larks"ktud ugha ikrs gq, gh fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] vr% vihydRrkZ dk ;g nkok fd muds Li"Vhdj.k ij cxSj fcpkj fd;s vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ekU; ugha gSA vr,o vihydRrkZ ds vkosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS ,oa fuEu U;k;ky; dk vkns’k lEiq"V fd;k tkrk gSA” In the opinion of this Court, the complete reappraisal of the materials by the appellate authority by looking into the specific defence of the petitioner as also recording the finding that there were glaring discrepancies in the P.D.S. shop of the petitioner would leave nothing for this Court to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits of the charge. This Court, therefore, is satisfied that there was no error in the decision making process and accordingly this application being misconceived is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/