T~ s^ ^wBA^Mat h.+i+i'-S^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALLPUR W.P.NO. 4378 OF 1995 Petitioner : Jawahar Saw, S/o Rameshwar Saw, Aged about 43 years, Proprietor of M/s Anil and Brothers, Sirsa Road, 'Supel-, Bhilai, Distr|ct- Durg M.P. Versus .^!SKy •WSSvt-'"'' t.'r' ':t: Respondents rl ^/^ ^r ^-^y s? ^ State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal M.P. The Commissioner (Revenue), Raipur Division, Raipur, M.P. The Additional Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies) Office of the Commissioner (Revenue) Raipur Division, Raipur, M.P. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Durg (Food Branch), District Durg, M.P. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 Kf ail^siTiR'ii* cCT3n^?I(b«li<b \. Hliliiii.] vjr.Tl -yiA|irt«,UTllwKS, Rrtl'<-iy'< l^f l\fc- ^37sJ9^ sn^si qaq? (^crfgsrs) ?wirw;^rfi?T3n^?T Shii P. Diwakar, Sr, Advocate for ihe petitioner. Slu-i Sandeep Dubey, ( .By this writ petition Constitution of India ihe p propricty aad coircctoess of P-6) passed by the AppeUati 20.4.1995 (Aniiexure P-4) p cum-CoUector, Durg wnerei holdiag tlie petLtioner Iiere coudition Noa.3 (1), 4, 5, 6 M.P. Keroscae Licensmg Ord provlsions of Clause 3 (2) of Ceuiag Price Order, 1993 Itllt 10 & 14 of tbe above Order, as fox'feited thc. scci-tdtv am.oi Briel' tacts relevant fot that tlle peti.ti.oner is propri^ naiae and sn'le of M/ s Anii ^, District Durg. The petitioae|i salc aad distribution of l£e.41sc license granted to tlie peuuojaer the Additional Collector, iuspec.tors Shri B.S. Shanaal t|?I.I|?d4l'1 *<Wrii)'^i"fe^^SR5N ^3lf^T3TTtST Advocate wifh Shii P.R, Pataakar, }ovt. Advocate for ttie State. under Arucles 2'26 & 2'27 of the ititioner has questioned fbe legalily, the oiiJ.er datcd 15.11,1995 (Aanexure Aufhority al'finmng fsie. oi-der dated i^ssed tey leamed DisQ-ict Magistrate- [)V leamed District Magisti'ate after iiii guiity for violauon of licensiiig jl), 8(1), 8 (2) &, 9; Clauscs 9 &. 10 of (er, 1979 and also for violation of the (he Registiation on Use auci Fixation of p^inished the pentioner und.er Cla.uses |19'7'9 snd canceUed the license as weU it dcposited by ttie pctitioiier hei-eiu. the dlsposal ot~ thls writ petition is rifctor of a finn functioning under (he Brot}.iers, Sirsa Road, Supela, Biiiiai, "'s firm. is engaged ui fh.e busiaess ol ;ne uil tlu'ough hawkci-s undcr tlic by respondent No.4. On 9.2,19"4 'ulrg Shri G.S. Mishra ialong with Food ajxd Sliii T-C. TB^ari conducted a rRid XI-HC-78 v5vq -<4iA||rt«,O^ft^FR, fElrtl'<iy'{ 3H^5T q^cp (^ctijcj^) 3n^?i<i>iR-iiti) ?i2tT3Il^?Iri)<-li<h _.^^^^ EI|S;i a°"- m the preinises of petitionerl; 1.3.1994 a show cause noticl petitioner subinitted reply Tlicreafter, thc District M<} 20.4.1995 canceUed me Uceijse tbneiture ol: secunty amoiinll aggrieved b}'" the' said order under CIause 16 of the O aufhoTih', which came to 15.11.1995. The case of fhe petitioi .neaniig was given to nim ann considered at the back of opportuiiit}' of hcanng, Th^ irreguiarities levelled agaiast recorded by fhe District M^j aiit&only ai'e perverse ana pctitioh. ia the cmninal case lcamed Spccial Judge vidc ji^ the petitioner from all 'hal-! i.l.i ! have heard leamed 'coit LearD.ea. Sr. Couiisel iiji charges on which the oetitioi sccuritv ainount has bccn foit <bl'4Fd<i1l «1!«<ri)'^'teQ^•(•di'i ^3)Kl*)3n^ST [s liiin at Bhuai and tuereaiier, on was issued to the petitioner. The ^to the said show cause notice. ^gistrate, Dui'g vide. yillcr dated of the petitioner aad dh^cted for deposited by the petitioner. Bcing the pentiou.er picfen'ed au appeaj t-der of 1979 before the appellate be disnusscd vidc ordcr-dated uldeal icr is ffaat no proper opportimit:/ of [the 1'epi'esentaUQn made by hiia was the petitioaer without givins aay pctitioiicr dcaicd fhe, chargcs of piim & fais finn aad. that Uie fiiidmg Istrate aud affirmed by the appellate l^gal. Moreover, aiter filing of ihis writ larisiae out of the same uicideat fhe reincnt dated 12.7.1999 acqiiittcd [•ges leveiled agaia.st the petitioner. ntinsel for ffae parti.es. Kjir the petitioner subjinitted that ihe ter's license has been canceUed and iffeited wcrc bcfcre fbc ciimnial Court J+d XI-HC-78 3n^?TwR'ii<h Wn3I1^?ISRWip •Sv^-^IWcWI,9-aWTS, 3:iT^?Tira^(^iij6j<6) S'RTISR^lfeTan^ST 3. and tlie criminal Court. afto acqiiitted fhe petitioner vide j P-8) holding that aU fhe c'ti'c petidoner's petttion deseivcs On .Uie oUier hand, lt State Shri Dubey siiuported Haviug iiea"l ]eamed c] the writ petitioa and judginer| ar recorutng fh.e evidence of parties iu.d.^xo.eiit cls.ted. 12.7.1099 >ABri&xure ^rges are not proved. Therefore, the i|o be aUowed, .etanied Cioveinment Advocate for the impugned orders. •t-'unsel for the part-ies, i ha.ve perused tt fAnnexnre P-8'i rendered bv Icamed Uie ludelaen Iiceri.sing Spccial uzidgc, Durg, Perusal of judgnient sqows to prove the charges aaauis-tl licensiiig conditions aiid the }j): been. aientioned ia. tfae iudelaenl Ordcr of 1993 arc not attractet' so tar as tlie vioiation of liceitsing 8(1), 8(2) & 9 is concenied, tUt saiae. There&re,. affer trial conclusion tfaat tlie charges l^ provcd. As such on this grou^id, by learaed District MagisG-41 passed by fhe appeUate auth^rifr iii the result, the petii iaipugned orders dated 15.1 (Aiuicxurc P-4) arc licrcby qu^shcd Certified copy as per ru| groulad. <t>l<lin41l *lMrsV^"f^><9 <Ril'(^l'( ^3if^>tg(i$gT ows fhat tlie respondent,/ State failed the peuuouer's In-m for violation. of rovisions ofibe Order of 1993. !t 'bas ijnent that on facts the orovisioas of td, It has furthcr bccii incntioircd tiiat ;4sing conditions Nos.3 (1), 4, 5, 6 (1), State has not been abte 10 prove the l^anied Special Judge reached to t'lie iveUed against the petitioner were not Uic order dated 20,4.1995 passcd Ite and the order-clated 15.11,1995 .drit\r are liaule to bc qitashcd. [ioa of tlie petiuoner is aUowed, the .11.1995 (.^nnexure P-6i & 20.4,1995 '••-.:-..-;'.r--- sd/- ^: ; L.C.BHADOO judge