Ram Gopal Saboo @ Gopal Sabu, aged about 58 years, son of Satyanarayan Saboo v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. and P.S. – Gumla, District
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 599 of 2023 ----- Ram Gopal Saboo @ Gopal Sabu, aged about 58 years, son of Satyanarayan Saboo, resident of Village – Main Road Gumla, P.O. and P.S. – Gumla, District – Gumla … … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. and P.S. – Gumla, District – Gumla 3. District Agricultural Officer, P.O. and P.S. – Gumla, District – Gumla 4. Joint Inspector of Agriculture (Agronomy), Ranchi Commissionaire, P.O. and P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi … … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SHIVA NAND PATHAK HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant For the Respondents ------ ------
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate : Dr. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC - III Order No. 06/Dated 15th July, 2024 Heard Ms. Sonal Sodhani, learned counsel for the appellant 1. and Dr. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III for the respondents-State. I.A. No. 4842 of 2024 2. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 118 days in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the instant application and submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented for sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the delay of 118 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 4842 of 2024 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 599 of 2023 4. The appellant, a proprietor of Gumla Krishi Kanti, Gumla dealing with business of fertilizer, is aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 6744 of
Decision
2022, by which the writ petition, filed for quashing of the cancellation Page 1 of retail license of fertilizer shop, was dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner was engaged in black marketing of essential commodities which are used for the farmers. 5. The facts which are not in dispute that a raid was conducted in the shop premises of the appellant, which led to lodging of a criminal case, being Gumla P.S. Case No. 195 of 2022 for the offences of Indian Penal Code, as also Section 7 and 19 (C) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Section 7 of the Essential Committees Act. It is also an undeniable fact that the license for selling fertilizer was cancelled on the same very day. The appeal preferred there-against was also rejected being time barred. 6. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that before the order of cancellation is rendered, the licensee should be given a reasonable opportunity for placing his case against the proposed cancellation of the license. Learned counsel further submits that even during the pendency of criminal case, there could hardly be an interim suspension of license for a period not exceeding ninety days and for which, no show cause is at all required to be given. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case, no show cause or any opportunity of being heard is given to the writ petitioner before cancellation of the trade license. It is further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that before cancelling the trade license, the provision enshrined in Clause 30 of the Control Order is mandatory, which prescribes time limit for analysis of sample of a fertilizer and communication of result to the concerned dealer / manufacturer. He submits that in the present case, no procedure prescribed under Clause 30 of the Control Order is adhered to and as such, the order cancelling the trade license of the appellant is fit to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifying the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge submits that the licensing authority has power to cancel a license by way of Page 2 punishment with regard to one or more trade articles, if any licensee or his agent or servant or any other persons acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the license. Learned counsel submits that since the appellant was found to be involved in illegal packaging and black marketing of fertilizer during course of raid and as such, his license was cancelled and a criminal case was also lodged against him. 8. From the rival submissions of the parties and from the undisputed facts, it can simply be understood that the order of cancellation of license was not preceded by any show cause notice and / or affording any opportunity therefor to the appellant. Now the issue for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether ample opportunity ought to have been given by the authorities before termination/cancellation of the license. Admittedly, the same was not done. 9. The issue as to whether without issuing any show cause or without being heard to the licensee, the trade license can be cancelled merely on ground of pendency of criminal case, fell for consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of M/s Swami Distributors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1990) 1 PLJR 210, wherein the Division Bench of the Patna High Court has been pleased to allow the writ petition and the order of suspension of the license without adhering to the opportunity to the licensee has been quashed. 10. In the instant case, merely lodging a criminal case, the trade license of the appellant was cancelled and the appeal preferred there- against was also rejected only on technical ground of limitation. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others v. Kameshwar Prasad & Another reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94 was of the view that “power to condone the delay in approaching the Court has been conferred upon the courts to enable to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay findings somewhat Page 3 sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raheem Shah & Anr. Vs. Govind Singh & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 910, while dealing with the matter of condonation of delay has held that when the parties were litigating with regard to the right over immovable properties and substantial rights, the delay could have been condoned by the lower appellate Court. The relevant paragraph no. 5 is quoted herein below:- “ 5. This Court Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held as hereunder: the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, in “The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on „merits‟. The expression „sufficient cause‟ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant Page 4 does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal.” 12. Admittedly, before cancellation of the license, no opportunity was given to the appellant and by doing so, the principle of natural justice was given a complete go-by. Before passing any order which is detrimental to the person concerned, the principle of audi alteram partem i.e. the cardinal principle of natural justice has to be followed. However, the appeal was rejected on technical ground of limitation which is not acceptable to this Court. These aspects of the matter ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge in view of the settled principals of law. In such circumstances, it was opened for the learned Single Judge to remit the matter back before the appellate authority for reconsideration as the same was rejected on technical grounds but these aspects of the matter was not at all appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 13. On overall analysis, the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 6744 of 2022 is faulted with and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back before the appellate authority to reconsider the same afresh on merits and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. This intra-court appeal is, hereby, allowed. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh-Abhishek/- Page 5