^SSSSSK^s'-sse^te^Sw^WwJ:..:; .^^^^^;; ^^ss'^^^ :^iil HlGHCOURT(3FJUDlGMURiCHI^AlfflSt3»RWgSiSiSi^ ^-.-........--^.-^^^ SINGL.EBENCMS |lGN^I-&^Rl^^MAYAK,^ MBS^SS[WNW>^StM.WS& EEI!IIONJERS ^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^ ^^ ^ V^^ Pregdent-BindulataSao.D/o.Shri BKaratLalSgo.agedaiioutSS. yearsR/o.VillageTamnar.Tehsil Gharghoda,DisttrRaigaiti(C.G.) ::,;;y&..,.;/':,>:,r.'.: :::: .^ I^PQNJjNTS 1. State^^^ ^Throygh.^ePnncipalSwi'^ary^^^^^ DepartmentofFoodancl^Civjl Sypglie^an^eonstjnierProtection ^D^artmein^B.K.SrBI'lawanRaipur :.,^-.i2.^,;;C^^fc^ii^l^^ul^hfl^6naE,^ce^^^^ ^.iy^^(Re^^argtiora,iDistFietif^igartK^.' ^/.::':^^,'.::3:..l'^%'',-,;g:Yl^ Distt.<Raigarh,(CsG.)- 4. SatyanandRathiay,M.L..A. Sal'teadiyaSacliiv^ChhatUsgarh State,Raipur(C.G^. 5. The DistnctFoodQffieeT, Gharghora.Distt; Raigarh(C.G.). Preseht:5hriRajeshPandey,learnedc6unselforthepetittoner. 'W>RALORDeR) (Passeclon 19th Jariuary, 2006) This writ petition is miscohceived and^^^ p^ Tespondent who is theBQmpefent authprity to grant authorisiation for fresh laiRpFieeshops,byhisorderdated 19^^005,^^ favour|of|th6 petitibher -Society. It is alleged that atthe behest of the 4"' responcie|it;l|tto 3rt responderrt reported to the 2nd re^ petitioner^ociety was indulging in certain malpradjGes and viqlat^ regulations. ©nWatbasis, the 2nd ^^^re^ jssuedsh<^c^se^n<^cedated 02.01.2006 callinguponthe^petitionet- Society to submit^te reply, if ahy, on the alleged irregular^^^ SSSSSiiisVS^SSSSf •z- malpractices. The petitioner-Society has already submitted its reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner without waiting for the order that may be made by the 2 respondent after consideration of its reply has rushed to this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated by the 2" respondent on the basis of the report submitted by the 3 respondent. Alternatively, it s prayed that a direction be issued to the 2 respondent to afford fair and adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Society, before passing any order. (2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that very initiation of the proceedings on the basis of the report submitted by the 3 respondent, is one without authority of law. Secondly, it was contended that the 2 respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner-Society to cross-examine all those persons whose statements are recorded in support of the allegations !evelled against the petitioner-Society. Both the contentions are not well-founded and not acceptable to the Court for more than one reason. it is not that the 2 respondent has abdicated the power vested in him in favour of any authority. The 2 respondent himself is seized of the matter and rightly issued show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner-Society to submit its reply oh the allegations levelled against him. A donee of the statutory power can exercise the jurisdiction vested in him not necessarily on the basis of the informatton or material he collects, but also on the basis of information and material that may be brought to his notice from any other source. The crux of the matter is that the donee of the statutory power should himself exereise the power vested in him and he cannot abdicate or delegate the power of decision-making in favour of any authority, unless the parent statute proviA>s_fout_by way of delegation. 'Wj'^^^S^S^^f^l^Sf^iSSS^ -s' 35 (3) The second contention is reqyired to be noticed only to be rejected. The petitioner-Society has appended a copy of the repiy submitted by it to the show-cause notice. In the reply to the show-cause notice, no request is made to the 2 respondent to tender those persons whose statements are recorded in support of the allegations, for cross- examination by the petitioner-Society. Even if the petitioner-Society were to make such a request, the 2" respondent, in my considered opinion, is not required in terms of !aw to accede to such request. The enquiry to be conducted by the 2 respondent cannot be equated or converted into a full-ftedged trial comparable to a tria! before the Civil Court or Criminal Law Court. The only thing the law insists is thatthe 2 respondent before acting on the allegations levelled against the petitioner-Society should appraise the petitioner-Society and provide it an opportunity to have its say in the matter and that is exactly the 2" respondent has rightly done it. Looking from any angle, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingty dismissed. Nocosts. i ~—- 8d/- The ChiefJustice .4>.