Skip to content


Sub-divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, Durgapur and ors. Vs. Amulya Ratan Sadhu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberF.M.A.T. No. 462 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1985Cal281
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 14, 226 and 227
AppellantSub-divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, Durgapur and ors.
RespondentAmulya Ratan Sadhu and ors.
Appellant AdvocateSamarendra Nath Dutta, Adv. led by ;Sr. Govt. Pleader
Respondent AdvocateK.K. Moitra, ;Amulya Kumar Mukherjee and ;Bhaskar Ch. Manna, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred(Mahabir Prosad Bansal v. State of West Bengal
Excerpt:
- .....state government, against the cancellation of the m. r. dealership of the writ petitioner and the learned judge should have dismissed the writ petition.3. the learned government pleader further submits that as there was substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving two show cause notices to the petitioner, one on april 4, 1981, which is annexure 'a' to the writ petition and the other on april 23, 1981, which is annexure 'd' to the writ petition and the petitioner having submitted replies to the said show cause notices, and the order of cancellation having been passed by the authority having jurisdiction to pass such order, the learned judge should not have interfered with the same.4. on the other hand, mr. amulya kumar mukherjee, learned advocate for the.....
Judgment:

Paritosh K. Mukherjee, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Mr. Justice T.K. Basu dated Aug. 31, 1981, in CR No. 5907(W) of 1981, whereby the learned Judge made the Rule absolute, and quashed the impugned order of cancellation of M. R. Dealership of the writ petitioner, the respondent herein.

2. In the present appeal before us, Mr. Samarendra Nath Dutta, learned Advocate for the State of West Bengal and others, the appellants, led by the learned Government pleader, at the very outset, submits that since the writ petitioner is a 'Modified Ration Dealer' and appointed under an agreement, entered into between the petitioner and the State Government, against the cancellation of the M. R. Dealership of the writ petitioner and the learned Judge should have dismissed the writ petition.

3. The learned Government Pleader further submits that as there was substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving two show cause notices to the petitioner, one on April 4, 1981, which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition and the other on April 23, 1981, which is Annexure 'D' to the writ petition and the petitioner having submitted replies to the said show cause notices, and the order of cancellation having been passed by the authority having jurisdiction to pass such order, the learned Judge should not have interfered with the same.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Amulya Kumar Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner has not been charged for the offence of which he has been found guilty and the order of cancellation of the M.R. Dealership of the writ petitioner has been passed for the alleged violation of Clauses 8 and 10 of the Agreement which was, however, not the charge.

Clauses 8 and 10 of the said agreement are as follows:

'8. The Retailer shall sell the foodstuffs direct to the consumers at the prices to be fixed from time to time against permits or other documents to be granted by the competent authority in this connection.

10. On demand the Retailer shall supply on tender of the price, foodstuffs only to such holders of Family Identity Cards/Permits as may be registered with the shop of the Retailer and to Holders of such other documents as may be issued in this behalf by the District Magistrate/controller from time to time at the rates of prices and quantities as may be determined from time to time by the Government and/or the District Magistrate/ Controller as the case may be.'

5. It appears from both the show cause notices dated April 4, 1981 and April 23, 1981 that although the writ petitioner has not been charged for violation of Clause 8 or Clause 10 of the said agreement yet he has been found guilty of such violation by the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food & Supplies, Durgapur, without giving him any opportunity of being heard. Curiously enough, there is no finding on the charges levelled against the writ petitioner in the said show cause notices. In other words, the M. R. Dealership of the writ petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he had violated Clauses 8 and 10 of the Agreement, but that was not the charge against him.

6. It does not appear from the judgment of the learned Judge that any argument was made on behalf of the appellants as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned Judge quashed the order of cancellation of the M. R. Dealership of the writ petitioner on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. The decision, cited by Mr. Dutta on behalf of the appellants reported in : AIR1984Cal384 (S. Paul v. State of West Bengal (Tripura?) which is a judgment of a single Judge of this Court lays down that no Writ lies in respect of violation of agreement of M. R. Dealership if the agreement as it is not a statutory one.

8. There are also other judgments of this Court including the judgment of Amiya Kumar Mookerjee, J. reported in (1976) 2 Cal U 79 (Mahabir Prosad Bansal v. State of West Bengal), wherein this Court interfered with the cancellation of dealership as it was found that there was violation of the principles of natural justice.

9. In our opinion, generally this Court should not interfere with an order of cancellation of M. R. Dealership but, whereas in the instant case, the authority concerned acted arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court accordingly should interfere. It has already been pointed out that the M. R. Dealership of the respondent has been cancelled on a charge which was not communicated to the respondent in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Judge has interfered with the impugned order of cancellation by quashing the same. We do not feel inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Judge.

10. In that view of the matter, the present appeal fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

Murari Mohan Dutt, J.

11. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //