IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 4840 of 2010 1. ASHOK KUMAR DAS S/O SRI SAKHICHAND DAS R/O VILL +P.O.+P.S.JAGDISHPUR, DISTT-BHAGALPUR 2. YOGENDRA BHAGAT S/O LATE HRIDAYA NARAYAN BHAGAT R/O VILL +P.O.+P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTT-BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR BHAGALPUR, DISTT-BHAGALPUR 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR BHAGALPUR, DISTT-MADHEPURA ----------- 2 18.05.2010 The petitioners, who are PDS dealers, have come to this Court with a grievance that their licences have been suspended on the dictates of the Divisional Commissioner and that too without granting them any opportunity of showing cause which is contrary to the provisions of Clause 7 of the Bihar Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2007. It appears that pursuant to certain complaints, as entertained by the Divisional Commissioner, he (Commissioner) wrote to the District Supply Officer to see that petitioners’ licences be suspended. This is apparent from Memo No 197 dated 03.03.2010. Pursuant to this complaint, the aforesaid Memo was issued whereby petitioners were asked to show cause against suspension of licence. Later, on the same very day, Memo No 204 dated 03.03.2010 was again issued by the same very Authority that is the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar Bhagalpur virtually restating what was stated in the earlier notice about intervention of the Divisional Commissioner but this time petitioners’ licences were suspended and, as such, the suspension has been without any prior notice. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire proceeding is vitiated inasmuch as whether to suspend a licence or not is the satisfaction and is within the jurisdiction of the Licensing Authority that is the 2 Subdivisional Officer, Sadar Bhagalpur. He has to apply his independent mind in this regard and it is his satisfaction that is material. In the present case, he having acted on the dictates of the Divisional Commissioner, the action cannot be said to be legal, valid and binding. Secondly, it is submitted that in view of Clause 7 of the Order, there is no provision for an ex parte interim suspension. Suspension is only provided under sub- clause (v) of Clause 7 of the said Order as a substantive punishment and that too after hearing the petitioners. Having considered the matter and with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In my view, the writ petition needs to be allowed. It is apparent that the Subdivisional Officer has neither received any complaint nor did he exercise the jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding on his own. He has merely acted on the dictates of the Divisional Commissioner and acted as a mere post office. That is not his jurisdiction. He is a statutory Licensing Authority and exercises quasi judicial functions. Those functions have to be exercised independently and not at the dictates of a superior officer. Such an exercise at the dictates of the superior officer renders the exercise of power invalid. I have no hesitation in setting aside the proceedings on this ground alone but other grounds are equally important. Under Clause 7 of the Order, there is no provision for interim suspension. Suspension is only by way of punishment for a period of 90 days upon issuance of show cause notice and consideration of show cause. Thus, the order of interim suspension without show cause notice is invalid. If one reads the notice, the only ground given is that there were 3 complaints to the Divisional Commissioner that petitioners were charging higher price. From whom, they were charging higher price, when did they charge higher price, what they charged and what was the price charged nothing has been brought on record. The show cause is extremely vague to be answered effectively. In view of all the aforesaid fats, I have no option but to set aside the impugned notices and allow the writ application. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)