Irregularity In Maintaining List Of Beneficiaries, Stocks Too Trivial, Does Not Warrant Cancellation Of Fair Price Shop License: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court recently quashed the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate in revision canceling the license of the petitioners for running a fair price shop under the Public Distribution System.

Justice Anil Kumar Sinha held that the onus to prove the charges is on the allegations; however, in the present case, the respondent, instead of proving the charges by cogent reason, has in a perfunctory manner rejected the defence of the petitioner without any consideration and by a reasoned order.

It further held that non-display of the notice board showing the list of beneficiaries/consumers within the premises of the petitioner is trivial in nature and cannot form basis for cancellation of license.

Background

A writ application was filed for quashing an order by the Sub Divisional Officer, canceling the PDS license of the petitioner for running a fair price shop, and another order by the District Magistrate upholding the earlier order.

The petitioner was granted a license to run a fair price shop of the petitioner under the Public Distribution System. In October 2017, the petitioner's shop was inspected and a show cause was issued for the following irregularities found amongst others: (a) list of beneficiaries was not displayed; (b) sample good grains were not displayed; (c) weight and measure license was not displayed.

The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause stating for each of the irregularities found. He also produced evidence of the distribution register and the statement of some beneficiaries.

After considering the show cause reply filed by the petitioner and other documents and material on record, the Licensing Authority canceled the license of the petitioner to run the fair price shop under the Public Distribution System for violating a 2016 order.

The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Licensing Authority canceling his license. The District Magistrate dismissed the same, and the revision application filed was also dismissed by the Commissioner.

Findings of the Court

The Court recorded separate observations for each of the irregularities considering the submissions of both sides.

With regard to allegation regarding Weight and Measure license, no findings were given by the Licensing Authority and it had accepted the plea of the petitioner that Weight and Measure license has already been renewed by the petitioner till October, 2018.

With regard to allegation regarding non-display of list of beneficiaries/sample food grains, it was held that the same cannot form basis for cancelling the license.

With regard to allegation regarding delay in the distribution of kerosene oil for the month of September, 2017, in the month of October, 2017 by the dealer, the petitioner had taken a specific plea that due to Chhath festival, the food grains were being distributed first and thereafter kerosene oil was supplied /distributed amongst the beneficiaries.

The Court noted that the Licensing Authority, while rejecting the specific plea of the petitioner did not properly deal with his defence. Further, there is no allegation that the petitioner diverted the kerosene oil meant to be distributed to the beneficiaries.

On obtaining a monthly certificate of distribution, the Sub Divisional Officer was found in default. Moreover, while passing the impugned order, the Licensing Authority did not consider the said certificate, despite being duly certified by the concert authority. The Court opined that it amounted to a denial of adequate opportunity to the petitioner due to non-consideration of a specific plea. It noted,

"There is not even a whisper much less any reason given by the Licensing Authority on the certification of the public representative duly submitted by the petitioner....One-sided rejection of the affidavits of the beneficiaries without giving the petitioner an opportunity to examine and/or cross-examine the beneficiaries amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and denial of adequate opportunity to the petitioner."

Examining the revisional authority's decision, the Court noted that it has merely reiterated the order of the Licensing Authority. Moreover, it has gone beyond the charge leveled against the petitioner and recorded observations in lieu of them.

Accordingly, the Respondent authority was directed to restore the PDS License of the Petitioner.

Case Title: Arun Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 3

Click Here To Download The Order

Click Here To Read The Order