news details |
|
|
| Good news Kerosene oil dealer; HC quashes order cancelling 700 licenses | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
Jammu, Apr 20: Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar in a petition filed by Kerosene Oil Retails Association challenging Govt order of February 13, 2007, canceling kerosene oil license of members, has quashed the order impugned so far as it pertains to members of the Association.
According to the respondent's case that some of the kerosene oil license holders are not functioning properly and were selling the Kerosene oil allotted to them in black market and mentioned that Division Bench of this Court in one of the cases, on the allegations that the Kerosene Oil is being mixed with Petrol and Diesel, issued certain directions to the respondent-State which persuaded the respondents to constitute a committee to look into the matter. In pursuance of the enquiry conducted more than 700 Kerosene licenses were cancelled. Department is catering to the requirements of the consumers and said that a criminal case is pending investigation against the petitioners (herein) for the alleged black marketing of the Kerosene Oil. It is further alleged that as the members of the petitioner-Association would sell Kerosene Oil in the black market, it was for these reasons that their licenses have been ordered to be cancelled. Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar after hearing both the sides observed that in the present case, it is revealed by the impugned order that a committee was constituted to streamline and rationalize the procedure for allotment of Kerosene Oil and its distribution in Jammu District within the municipal limits of Jammu. It is also alleged in the impugned order that some of the Kerosene Oil Depots are only shown on papers. Interim report of the committee constituted intimated that 616 Kerosene Oil depots are not functioning properly. It is on the basis of these reports that the licenses of the members of the petitioner-Association have been ordered to be cancelled. The question that has come up for consideration of this Court and begs answer is as to whether without identifying the Kerosene Oil dealers who according to respondents have violated the terms and conditions of the license and who were functioning only on papers and or/were not functioning properly, could the impugned order be passed. The allegations contained in the impugned order are not only stigmatic, but penal in nature, in as much as, in consequence thereof, the licenses of the member of the petitioner-Association have been cancelled. The impugned order does not anywhere show that any of the individual license holders has been put on notice informing him/them about the nature of allegations against them. The impugned order on this short count, being volatile of principal of natural justice, is rendered void abintio and deserves to be quashed. However, in order to further show that impugned order is unreasonable and arbitrary, it has to be mentioned that no effort has been made by the respondents to consider the case of the members of the petitioner-association individually. There could be allegations against some persons of one nature and against some persons of a different nature and may be that there would not be any allegations against some of the members of the petitioner-Associations. Respo-ndents have neither referred to specific allegations against any of the license holders in the impugned order nor have they stated that who was license holder, holding the license on paper alone and which of license holders were not functioning properly. The impugned order is not only non descriptive but is vague as well. Nothing can be comprehended by a reasonable person from such an order.
Court further observed that the order on this count also is rendered arbitrary and violative of the guarantees as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order deserves to be quashed on one more count viz. the proviso appended to Rule 7 of the order of 1974 provided that before proposing action for cancellation of the license, a reasonable opportunity of hearing has to be afforded.
The impugned order is silent about the compliance of the above said provision. Respondents, thus, have violated their own rules and allowed the petition filed by the association and quashed the impugned order pertains to members of the petitioner's association respondents are given liberty to initiate against individual members of the petitioner's association and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing. ---JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
