Partly allowed

M/S War Hero Oil Company v. Union of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2018WRIC/37744/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging cancellation of a wholesale kerosene licence, the court held that despite no apparent procedural error, the petitioner must be given one opportunity to submit an explanation to the enquiry report before fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to submit a reply within three weeks; directed District Supply Officer to consider it and pass a reasoned order; impugned orders subject to fresh order.

M/S War Hero Oil Company Vs Union of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37744 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S War Hero Oil Company Respondent :- Union Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manu Khare

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶4

The present petition is directed against the orders dated 12.04.2017 passed by the District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division Kanpur Nagar, whereby the licence No.4/34 of wholesale kerosene oil (bulk) granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. The orders impugned are being challenged in the present petition with the specific contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner that reasonable opportunity of being heard i.e. to submit an explanation has not been accorded to the petitionerlicencee before cancellation of licence.

¶5

It is contended that on certain complaints, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an enquiry report dated 01.04.2017 was submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Narval, Kanpur Nagar before the District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar.

¶6

The suspension order accompanied by the show cause notice dated 01.04.2017 was, thereafter, passed by District Supply Officer.

¶7

The said order was served upon the petitioner on 04.04.2017. No reply as such could be submitted by the petitioner till 06.04.2017 which was the date fixed in the aforesaid notice. On the request made by the petitioner vide letter dated 06.04.2017 only ten days time was granted and 10.04.2017 was fixed for disposal of the matter. No explanation could be offered by the petitioner on 10.04.2017 and as such, she moved an application dated 10.04.2017 seeking one week more time to submit her explanation. This request made by the petitioner was not accorded by the District Supply Officer and the order impugned dated 12.04.2017 was passed.

¶8

The appellate authority also rejected the appeal on the ground that sufficient opportunity had been provided to the petitioner, in as much as, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer as she did not respond to the notice issued by the Sub Divisional officer. After the notice dated 01.04.2017, the appellate authority records that the District Supply Officer had given sufficient time to the petitioner to submit her reply. However, as to the merits of the complaints against the petitioner nothing has been recorded by the appellate authority. The District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar, it appears has simply approved the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 01.04.2017.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel placing the relevant clause 11 of U.P. Commodity Control Orders submits that the licensing authority namely the District Supply Officer had granted sufficient opportunity

¶10

to the petitioner and there was no occasion for him to extend the time in filing the objection. He could not have extended the time for filing objection by the petitioner in view of the second proviso to clause 11 which provides that the suspension order would automatically cease to remain in operation beyond the period of two weeks.

¶11

Submission is that from the records, it appears that the petitioner was taking time to file her objection so as to frustrate the suspension order on account of the provisions of automatic cession under the Rules. Further submission is that the first proviso to clause 11 only speaks of reasonable opportunity which has been duly granted to the licencee. Even otherwise, the licensee did not participate in the enquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer and there is no dispute with regard to the notice being served upon her prior to the submission of the enquiry report. No plausible objection could be taken by the petitioner in the present petition regarding the procedure adopted by the District Supply Officer.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, this Court though does not find any apparent error in the procedure adopted by the District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar, however, noticing the fact that the order impugned entails serious civil consequence, this Court is of the considered view that one opportunity be provided to the petitioner to submit her explanation to the report dated 01.04.2017 submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, contents of which has been extracted in the notice dated 01.04.2017. It is, therefore, provided that the petitioner may submit her reply within a period of three weeks from today before the District Supply Officer along with certified copy of this order.

¶13

In case, explanation is submitted by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar would be under obligation to consider the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

¶14

The orders impugned dated 12.04.2017 as affirmed by appellate court vide order dated 14.06.2018 would be subject matter of fresh order to be passed by the District Supply Officer.

¶15

It goes without saying that the license would remain suspended till such a decision is taken by the District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar and the direction given herein above would not be treated as a tool to restore the licence of the petitioner, which would be subject to the result of the fresh order to be passed by the District Supply Officer.

¶16

Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.11.2018 Himanshu

M/S War Hero Oil Company v. Union of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S War Hero Oil Company v. Union of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Flexi Pack Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Secretary and 2 Others

Bhanu Pratap Vs State of U P and 03 Others

Laldev Yadav Vs State of U P and 03 Others

Navin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahkar Singh Mavi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushlendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others