Allowed

Jai Govind Sahu v. Food Supply

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2018WPC/4494/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an order cancelling the petitioner's PDS licence and dismissing his appeal, holding that the licensing authority violated principles of natural justice by relying on inquiry and inspection reports never supplied to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.10.2015 quashing the appellant's order dated 19.03.2015 and the latter order are quashed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to pass a fresh order after serving reports and provi

Jai Govind Sahu Vs Food Supply — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 4494 of 2016

¶4

Jai Govind Sahu …Petitioner

¶5

-V e r s u s-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Commerce Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶9

Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi

¶10

Block Development Officer, Lapung, District- Ranchi

¶11

Block Supply Officer, Lapung, District- Ranchi

¶12

…. Respondents

¶13

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

For the Petitioner :- Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, Advocate For the Respondents :- Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, G.P. IV Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, AC to G.P. IV

¶15

Order No.-06

¶16

Dated: 04.12.2018

¶17

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent No.3) in P.D.S Appeal No. 04 R 15/2015-16 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order as contained in memo no. 150 dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi (respondent no. 4) cancelling the P.D.S licence of the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶19

2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was the holder of P.D.S licence No. 01/1999 to run the PDS shop at village Gudgud, Panchayat - Mahugaon, Block - Lapung, District - Ranchi. Due to certain difficulty, the petitioner vide his application dated 10.05.2014 requested the respondent no. 4 through Block Supply Officer, Lapung (respondent no. 6) to grant him permission to distribute ration to the card holders from his house situated near Mahugaon Police O.P which is 3 km away from his P.D.S shop. On the said request, the respondent no. 6, in anticipation of approval of the respondent no. 4, granted permission to the petitioner vide his note dated 10.05.2014 and thereafter the petitioner started distributing the ration to the card holders from his house. However on 27.05.2014, an inspection was made in the shop of the petitioner by a team of officers and in pursuance thereof a

¶20

¶21

show cause notice was issued to him vide memo no. 150 dated 27.05.2014 alleging inter alia that during the inspection, the shop of the petitioner was found closed. Moreover, notice board, price list and stock list etc. were not found affixed on the wall of the shop. The measurement articles such as weighing machine etc. were also not found in the said shop. It was further alleged that certain villagers had also made complaint against the petitioner regarding his bad behaviour with the card holders. In the meantime, the P.D.S. licence of the petitioner was also suspended. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice dated 27.05.2014 upon which the respondent no. 4 vide memo no. 205 dated 16.06.2014 directed the respondent no. 6 to make an inquiry and submit a report. Consequently, the inquiry report was submitted by the respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 12 dated 19.02.2015. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 vide memo no. 150 dated 19.03.2015 cancelled the P.D.S licence of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation made by the respondent no. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 3 (the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi) being P.D.S Appeal No. 04 R 15/2015-16 who vide impugned order dated 30.10.2015 dismissed the said appeal thereby upholding the order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the respondent no.4. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 19.03.2015 cancelling the P.D.S licence of the petitioner has been passed by the respondent no. 4 in violation of the principles of natural justice as the inquiry report submitted by the respondent no. 6 was not handed over to him so as to enable him to appropriately respond to it. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 6 had himself given permission to the petitioner to shift all the articles relating to public distribution system to his house, however only after 15 days of granting the said permission, the inspection was conducted on 27.05.2014 in the petitioner’s shop and thereby reporting certain infirmities as was found during the said inspection. It is also submitted that the allegation against the petitioner that he used to distribute less quantity of food grains and other articles to the card holders is baseless in absence of any such

¶23

¶24

statement of the villagers. Moreover, the respondent no. 3 being the appellate authority also failed to consider that the PDS licence of petitioner was cancelled on the basis of an inspection report of a team of officers and an enquiry report of the respondent no. 6, however both the said reports were not supplied to the petitioner before passing the order cancelling his PDS licence. The appellate authority has also failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 4 after receipt of the reply submitted by the petitioner had himself directed the respondent no. 6 to make fresh inquiry who while ignoring the order of the respondent no. 4 without making any fresh inquiry submitted comments and recommendation on the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner earlier, which led to passing of the order dated 19.03.2015 by the respondent no. 4 cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner.

¶25

4. Per contra, learned A.C. to G.P IV appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the respondent no. 6 had submitted the inquiry report vide letter no. 12 dated 19.02.2015 with his comment that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the licence by committing several irregularities as was found by the inquiry team during the inspection at the petitioner’s PDS shop. The respondent no. 4 has passed the order cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner on the basis of the inquiry report and also after going through the reply submitted by the petitioner. Since sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, there is no violation of principles of natural justice by the respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 being the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner holding inter alia that as per the report of the respondent no.6, the petitioner was found having contravened his duty and responsibility cast under the provisions of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 4 had never directed the respondent no. 6 to make further inquiry in the matter, rather he had asked him only to submit his comment towards the allegation levelled against the petitioner. It is finally submitted that the petitioner had never made any request before the respondent no. 4 to supply the copy of the report submitted by the inspection team.

¶26

¶27

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents available on record. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was neither supplied the report submitted by the inspection team nor the subsequent report of the respondent no. 6 submitted in pursuance of the letter dated 16.06.2014 issued by the respondent no. 4. There is no specific denial of the said fact by the respondents in their counter affidavit.

¶28

6. It is a settled law that the administrative/quasi-judicial authorities while taking any action adversely affecting the rights of a person must act judiciously and provide due opportunity of hearing to the affected party.

¶29

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kothari Filaments & Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 192 , has held as under:

¶30

“15. The Act does not prohibit application of the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Customs either could not have passed the order on the basis of the materials which were known only to them, copies whereof were not supplied or inspection thereto had not been given. He, thus, could not have adverted to the report of the overseas enquiries. A person charged with misdeclaration is entitled to know the ground on the basis whereof he would be penalised. He may have an answer to the charges or may not have. But there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in law he is entitled to a proper hearing which would include supply of the documents. Only on knowing the contents of the documents, he could furnish an effective reply.........”

¶31

8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) Lucknow Vs. CIT, Central-I and Another reported in (2008) 14 SCC 151, has held thus:

¶32

“18. Recently, in Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy the concept, scope, history of development and significance of principles of natural justice have been discussed in extenso, with reference to earlier cases on the subject. Inter alia, observing that the principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasijudicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights, the Court said: (SCC pp. 331- 32, para 14)

¶33

“14. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a

¶34

¶35

statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression ‘civil consequences’ encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and nonpecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life.”

¶36

19. Thus, it is trite that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences for the party affected. The principle will hold good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial.”

¶37

9. This Court, in the case of Suresh Kumar Sao Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) JBCJ 460 and in the case of Bidya Devi Vs. The State of Jharkhand, Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department & Ors. reported in 2015 (4) JLJR 685 , has quashed the impugned orders cancelling the P.D.S licenses of the said petitioners primarily on the ground that the inquiry reports which were relied upon by the licensing authority were not supplied to them.

¶38

10. In the factual context of the present case also, it appears that the petitioner was not served the enquiry reports submitted by the respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 12 dated 19.02.2015 which has been referred by the respondent No.4 in the memo no. 150 dated 19.03.2015 and the respondent no. 3 (appellate authority) in the impugned order dated 30.10.2015. Moreover, on perusal of the memo dated 19.03.2015 issued by the respondent no. 4, it transpires that the said authority has not at all dealt with the reply submitted by the petitioner before him, rather he proceeded to pass the said order primarily on the basis of the report dated 19.02.2015. The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 6 had permitted him to shift the goods pertaining to public distribution system from his shop to his house and therefore serious prejudice

¶39

¶40

has been caused to the petitioner due to non-supply of the inquiry report as he did not get sufficient opportunity to explain the allegation levelled against him.

¶41

11. Thus, on this score alone, the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 in PDS Appeal No. 04R 15/2015-16 as well as the order contained in Memo No. 150 dated 19.03.2015 passed by the respondent no.4 cannot be sustained in law and the same are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No.4, however, is at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law, after serving the enquiry/inspection reports as well as other relevant documents (if demanded by the petitioner) and on providing due opportunity of hearing to him.

¶42

12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶43

Ritesh/A.F.R.

Jai Govind Sahu v. Food Supply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Govind Sahu v. Food Supply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayodhya Ram And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Akaank Water Suppliers Through Its Proprietors Chandra Shekhar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dtv Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Mithila Construction Through Its Proprietor Ramesh Prasad Singh Vs Union Of India Through Director General Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research And Ors.

Shri Subodh Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Dugai Kumhar Vs Eastern Coalfields Limited