,<8?^ ;.;^., :^^:f '.^•i ^^., H'lll1 ••^m^ .:y;;-f :i81-!- •tlS^• :^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI bHIRENbM MISHRA, J PETITIONER W.P.fc) No.2655 of 2009 Sujit Kumar fiupta, S/o Shri Shivnandan Prasod 6upta, aged about 45 years, R/o Near Teen Darshan Mandir, Camp-1 Bhitai, Police Station Bhilai 3, Tehsil and District burg, Chhattisgarh. Vs RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, 6overnment of Chhattisgarh, Department of Food ond Civil Supplies, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan/ Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, Durg, bistrict Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Food Controller, burg/ Chhattisgarh. 4, Marketing Officer Indian Oil Corporation Limited Bhilai-3, t)ept. District Durg CG. 5. Marketing Officer Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited illl ^:^,, '^ 2 .^ ^•^ee^ :I:il^'^ 's^. ^i'y^^i'? ^y- w,i- ogii, •i'lr^^ lillitl •'•''-^ii';: sai aii Bhilai, Dept. Oistrict Durg C&. Present : Shri RS Marhas/learned counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur,tearned PL for the State/respondents No. lto3. Shri PS Koshy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 23rd September, 2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J The petitioner by the instant petition has impugned the order of Annexure P/l dated 27.4.2009 passed by the Collector (Food Section) bistt. Durg, whereby the Marketing Officer of the Indian Oil/Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Bhilai-3 bepot, Distt. burg, has been directed to ban transportation of petrot, diesel, blue kerosene by tankers owned by petitioner-Sujit Kumar Gupta, with immediQte effect in the public interest QS the petitioner is habitually engaged in btack-marketing of blue kerosene. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above order has been passed without any show-cause notice to the petitioner and the same is adversely affecting the entire business of the petitioner as the respondent-Corporations have stopped the petitioner's fleet of tankers from lifting petroleum products from their depots. He further submits that the order impugned, on the face of it, is without jurisdiction and illegal as the same has been passed without following the principles of natural justice and without issuing any notice. '%. :'%^^' £f '.s.. ^y"" ^- ^m^^ m^ 'M^' III1 ^jiit1s s^ r' Shri PS Koshy and Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 <& 5 jointly submit that the Oil Corporations have already stopped detivering petroleum products through tankers of the petitioner and the transportation is being arranged through some other contractors. Shn" Shashank Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that the Licensing Authority-bistrict Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under Clause-6 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 hos passed the impugned order in the public interest QS the petitioner-controctor was engaged in black- marketing of essential commodity-blue kerosene, which is supptied under the Pubtic Distribution System scheme throughout the State. However, he fairly submits that before passing the above order, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the licence of the petitioner issued under the Kerosene Control Order KQS neither been suspended nor cancelled. :8BI III. 'llSlli .t^|l]II1 i||}l:.. i:ii Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case/ considering that the order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it amounts to virtuolly canceling the licence issued to the petitioner, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingty, the impugned order, so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-Licensing Authority to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as per relevant Control Orders applicable in the matter With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ,lilr lilS' l'!B!^f