AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra whereby and whereunder, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra cancelling the PDS license of the petitioner has been upheld.
Petitioner was allotted licence for running a public distribution shop.
Complaints were received against the petitioner Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra from the card-holders that the foodgrains were not supplied to the beneficiaries at the fixed rate and also there was a shortfall of 2 to 2.5 kg. in every sack of foodgrains.
When the Sub Divisional Officer made inspection in the distribution shop, he was manhandled and assaulted. An enquiry was initiated and the petitioner was asked to submit show cause and, on its basis, the license was cancelled. The cancellation order has been affirmed in appeal.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the principle of natural justice has not been observed in holding the enquiry and the show cause submitted by the petitioner has also not been considered. It is further submitted that the card-holders and beneficiaries had submitted affidavit that they have no complaint with the petitioner.
So far as the principle for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of Writ is concerned, it is settled by a long line of judicial precedence that it is to be issued in appropriate cases on equitable principles and for advancing the substantive cause of justice. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425
“That, however, is not to say that the jurisdiction will be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The High Courts do not, and should not, act as courts of appeal under Article 226. Their powers are purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion it must be exercised along recognised lines and not arbitrarily; and one of the limitations imposed by the Courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in this class of case unless substantial injustice has ensued, or is likely to ensue. They will not allow themselves to be turned into courts of appeal or revision to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice in a broad and general sense, for, though no legislature can impose limitations on these constitutional powers it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily as may be. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of case.”
This is a case where the serious allegations of black-marketing have been levelled against the petitioner who was running a public distribution shop and, when the Sub Divisional Officer went for inspection, he was also manhandled. FIR was lodged being Pratapur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2016 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner.
Under the circumstance, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for issuance of interfering with the concurrent finding recording in the impugned order.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.