The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 481 of 2023 --- Banwari Dangi .......Appellant 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra 3. The S.D.O. Chatra Versus --------- .......Respondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan --------- For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-III --------- 07/30.04.2024 Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C. (Mines)- III. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5076 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner for quashing of the order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra and its affirmation by Deputy Commissioner, Chatra in his order dated 08.06.2018 has been dismissed. 3. It has been submitted by Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was having a licence under the Public Distribution System since the year 1984 and only on the basis of some vague allegations that certain bags of rice under the B.P.L Scheme was kept in his PDS Shop which was not distributed and which was intended by writ petitioner for the purposes of black-marketing his license has been cancelled. It has been submitted that the inception of the proceeding for cancellation of the PDS licence of the writ petitioner was on the basis of a Newspaper report and in fact none of the BPL Cardholders had come forward to make any complaint that they were not distributed the rice for a particular period, for which the proceeding was initiated. It has further been submitted that at the relevant point of time, there was no storage limit with respect to rice in terms of the provisions of Bihar Trade Article Unification Order, 1984 and
Decision
therefore, no proceeding could have been initiated against the writ petitioner. 1. Mr. Dubey has also drawn the attention of this Court to a simultaneous criminal proceeding against the writ petitioner with respect to the bags of rice kept in his shop for the purposes of black-marketing while submitting that the said criminal proceeding has already ended in an acquittal and this fact was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, but the same was brushed aside as would be evident from the order dated 08.06.2018. Learned counsel therefore submits that all these aspects have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application preferred by the writ petitioner. 4. Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-III has submitted that the principles of natural justice have been followed as prior to cancellation of the PDS Licence of the writ petitioner a show cause notice was given to him, which was duly replied to and none of the issues which have been raised by learned counsel for the writ petitioner in this appeal were ever raised by the writ petitioner in his show cause. It has further been submitted that the criminal proceeding as well as the proceeding initiated for cancellation of the PDS Licence of the writ petitioner operate on different fields and merely because the writ petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding, the same would not have any bearing on the proceeding with respect to cancellation of licence and therefore, the Appellate Authority had though taken note of the aforesaid fact had rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner. 5. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the writ petitioner was issued a licence under the Public Distribution System in the year 1984 bearing Licence No. 08/1984. Based on a Newspaper report with respect to some irregularities committed by the petitioner regarding non-distribution of BPL rice to the Cardholders, a proceeding was initiated and the writ petitioner was directed to file a show cause. Consequent to the filing of the show cause vide order dated 11.12.2011, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra has cancelled licence No. 08/1984 of the writ petitioner against which he had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra which was registered as case No. 143/2011. At the time of conducting a raid in the PDS Shop of the writ petitioner and since certain bags of rice bearing FCI mark were found and which were construed to be for the purposes of black-marketing, a criminal case was also 2. instituted being Pathalgadda P.S. Case No.1/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 419,420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the writ petitioner and some other similarly situated persons. The said criminal case ultimately ended in an acquittal by virtue of the judgment passed by learned SDJM, Chatra dated 10.08.2015. The acquittal of the writ petitioner was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner Chatra during the pendency of the appeal but by virtue of the order dated 08.06.2018, though a reference was made with respect to such acquittal the appeal was ultimately dismissed which compelled the writ petitioner to prefer WP(C) No. 5076 of 2019 which affirmed the order passed by appellate authority and which is the order impugned to the present appeal. 6. As has been noted above, the raid which was conducted was on the basis of a Newspaper report with respect to some alleged irregularities committed by the writ petitioner and some other similarly situated persons with respect to non-distribution of the rice to the BPL Cardholders. Admittedly, the State Authorities have failed to bring on record any complaint which would vindicate the fact with respect to the non-distribution of rice to the BPL Cardholders and though a show cause was submitted by the writ petitioner but the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra seems to have been swayed by the Newspaper report and has not at all considered the absence of any complaint from any of the affected persons if at all. The order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra has also failed to take into consideration as to whether there was any storage limit with respect to rice at the relevant point of time which was also was one of the primary considerations to come to a conclusion as to whether the writ petitioner was involved in black-marketing. So far as the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Chatra in appeal is concerned, although it was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority about the acquittal of the writ petitioner in the criminal case instituted based on the same facts but save and except making a note of the acquittal the Appellate Authority has also not applied its mind with respect to such acquittal. 7. On a perusal of the judgment of acquittal, it appear that the basis for initiation of a criminal case is same as that if the initiation of proceeding for 3. cancellation of PDS Licence of the writ petitioner and since on the same charges the writ petitioner had already been acquitted, the appellate Authority should have appropriately considered the emerging facts while deciding the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner. 8. The learned Single Judge has discarded the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner with respect to the acquittal of the writ petitioner in the criminal case but has not considered the other aspects of the matter which we have discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs. The impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5076 of 2019 having not properly appreciated the material issues connected with the case in hand, we accordingly set aside the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5076 of 2019 and consequently quash the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chatra (Annexure-5) as well as the order dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure-1) passed by the S.D.O. Chatra. 9. This appeal is allowed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Jk/vikas (Deepak Roshan, J.)