fy,^^ s& IN THB mOH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ATJABAfcfcyUR W,PJ»0. 4377 OF 1995 Petitioner isS^^I;'3 :""; ' Krishna Saw, S/o B. Saw, Aged about 42 years, Proprietor of M/s Santosh and Brothers, Baikunth Nagar Camp-2, Bhilai, Distorfct- Durg M.P. Versus Respondents 1. State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretary, Department of Pood and Civil Supplies, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal M.P. 2. The Commissioner (Revenue), (Pood and Civil Supplies) Raipi-ir Division, Raipur, M.P. 3. The Additional Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies) Office of the Coinmissioner (Revenue) Raipur Division, Raipur, M.P. 4. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Durg (Food Branch), DistrictDurg, M.P. WIUT renTioN UKDER ARTICLB 226 AND 227 OP THE CONSTITUTIOR OF INDIA XI-HC-78 vjx.q -<jl<<lrt^, tO'ol'i-l'Ke, Rrilfly'i .w£.^:.^2^J.?.s: an^^i'PTR-ii'i) awsn^STiRTriw OTBTSR^rftgslI^CT 'p]<4(n<4ll l!*lrtV^''f®cQ•<Rjl'('<i!'; ^si^irgn^sT 08.11.2003 Shri P. Diwakai-, Sr. Advocate for rhe petiuoner; Shri Satideep Dubey, G By tliis writ petition Coastitution of india the pi pfopriet;' aad cori'cctaess of P-6) passed by the Appeuat^ 20.4.1995 (Annexure P-4) p| cuia-CoB.ector, Durg wheret 'aoldinK tlie oeutioner hen coudition No-s.3, 5, 6 (2), 6( Kerosene Licensiag Order, orovisions of Clause 3 (2*i of Ceiling Price Order, 1993 p'] 10 & 14 offhe above Oider. asi forfcited tlic sccurity ajmo' Brief tacts rclevant tbt fh.at the petitioner is proprit naiae and style of M/ s Santt The petitioners fina is ertlf distiibution. of ke.ros.cnc oil| grantea to tne petinoner biy Additional CoHector, Dure Inspectors Shri B.S. Sharmal lAuvocate wifh. Shri P.R. Pataakar, ^ ibvt. Advocate for tlie State. under Articles 226 3& 227 of 'tn.e ttitioner has auestioned fhe legaliw. i|hc oixler dated 15.1 1,1995 (AjU.ucxiu'e Authoriw affirming fhe order dated i^ssed by learaed District Magisti'ate- ky leamed District Magistrate after 'elm guilty for violation of' licensing [f3i ;8(1) Sa 9; Clauses 9 & 10 of M,P, 11979 aiid also for violation of tlie fae Registration on Use aiid Fixation of inished tbe penaoner under Clanses 11979 aiid cancelled ffae Ucense as weU at dcposited by the pctitioacr lic.i-ciu.. tlie disposal of mis writ petition is :tor of a firm fanctioniug under the <sh fir. Brofhers, Bhilai, District Durg. gaged ia fhe business of sale aiid ftu'ouah hawkei-s imder tlie liceiisc respondent No.4. On 9.2.1994 llie Shri G,S. Mishra along with. Food and StiriT-C. T 7ari conducted a i-a.id I.Ijl|]f[I;i^...S:tf«j...-i".M—*. XI-HC-78 ^•6Tj "yi^iri^l, yTilwic, fsirti'i'iy^ 3H^?T tR^ ('jcii^o^) 3D^S7<1>TRT1J* ciairan^ST**)i* SRITtK ^lf%5T Sn^ST —lA- <i>raf?s4^'ffTOf^'fe^ !?fSrFeR ^art^tSB^CT ei Tlie uremises of petitiouei 25.2.1994 a show cause noti petitioner subniitted reply Thercafter, dic Disttict ^ 20.4.1995 ca-ncelled fhe ticei forfeiture of seciirifr amounl aggrieved by the 'ssdd oniei i-uider Clause 16 of tfae Q authority, which cainc tc 15.11,1995. The case of the petitio: s firm at Bhilai and ttierealter, on ce was issued to tfae petitioner. The ^- to the said shov. cause notice, lA^u.Y'i agistrate, Durg vide order dated ise of dae petitioner aiid directed for deposited 'by the petitioner. Beuig Uie petitioner preferred a" appeal rder of 1979 before tbe apBenate bc disiiiisscd vidc ordcr-dated neai-uig was given m nun ancl opportuiut)- of hcariiig. Th^: irregularities leveiled agaiast recorded by the Distiict Magt' autfaoriw are peryerse and 31^: petition in fhe criaiinal case lcaracd Spccial Judgc vidc jui^ petitionsr trom all the ciiarge^ I have heard leanied coi Leamed Sr. <3ounsel f4 charges on wliich fhe petitiol seciiritv aiaouilt has bccn foll tier is that no proper opportanirv of the rcpregenratioa inade by him was the rsetitioner without giving aav l^ pctitioner dcnied Oic chargcs of lliim Si, his firra ana that the tuidiag Mag^strate and alfirmed by the appeUate ;a}. Moreover, aSer filLng of tliis writ larisiae out 0} tfae saiEe incident the jui^gcincnt dated 4.6,1999 acquittcd tiic levelled as.am.st the petiaouer. tinsel for the parties, br fb.e oetitioD.er subinitted fha.t the faer's license has been canceUed aad tfcitcd wcre bcforc Uic criiniaal Court 1 ^r'"^''^""'^'r*' XI-HC-78 vdx.q ^ioirt^, ui-al-<i<id, fqrtmy<< an^ST<i'TR'i ;rai3II^?T*4 w»0 STf^STq^R (t^clijcl^) e'RffSR^rfitTsn^sT — \ aftelr aad the ciimiaal Court aft. acquirted the peutioner vide P-8) holdmg that aU the ch, UJS <-- ftejr recordiD.g the. evidence of pajtieS ^udgmeat dated 4.6.1Q99 (Annexure ^ 'h^rges are not proved. Therefors, the ftte ractdd petitioncr s pctition desex'ves On the ofher haad, le( State Shri Dubey sui3portcd Having heard leanied the writ petition and judgaiei^ Spccial Judgc, Durg. Perusal of judgment sl^ to prove fhe charges againslj iicensing conditions and the t| been 3iieationed ia the judgi^ Ordcr of 1993 arc not attracy' so far as the violation of licej 8(1) & 9 is concemed, the sanie. There&re. after trial conclusion. that the charges 1< proved. As such on fhis groii^ bv leanied District Magisto(i passed by the appeUate aufhc): In the resuit, the peti^i iaipugned orders dated 15.1 (Ajinexure P-4) are hcreby qu^. Certified copy as per ru^i groii^id, Wlfrt'il'1 *i!>)rt'f^'(.s'<) •<Rd<^l'( ^sif^rair^CT gi^ienl b bc aUowed. teued GoverHinent Advocate Ibr the impugned orders. c^unsel tor l-tie parues, ) jtiawe perusea lt i'Annexure P-8} i^adei-ed bv leamed jows that tlie respoiident/Sate failed flie petitioner's firm for violation 01 trovisions of ih.e Oid.er of 1993. It lias ^tent that on facts fhe provisions of tdd. It has furtlier becii incutioned that tismg conditions Nos.3,5, 6 (2), 6(3), gtate has not been able to prove thc l^amed Speci-ql Judge reached to uie •velled agaiust the petitioner were not ., thc orderdated 20.4.1995 passcd te and the order-dated 15.11.1995 jritv are liable to be quashed. 'on ol ttie petinoner is auowea, tiie .11.1995 (Annexi-ire P-6i & 20.4.1995 ;3. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge