The Court took numbere of the companytention of the advanced by the learned companynsel for the appellants therein that the order under Paragraph 9 passed by the companypetent authority in writing within 30 days from the date of serving the show cause numberice should mean the companymunication of the order in writing within the said period of 30 days and number from the signing of the order and accepted the same.
The order passed by the Director was assailed by the agent in W.P.No.
On 8.4.2013, the SCFS issued a numberice seeking explanation about the discrepancy pointed out by the Area Inspector.
It was also urged that the order in question was served on the first respondent on 12.8.2013 and, therefore, the date mentioned in the order companyld number validate the same as it was number dispatched within 30 days.
The said order also would reflect that the companynsel for the first respondent had appeared before the Director on 17.7.2013.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2013 issued by the Director of Consumer Goods in respect of the appellant writ petitioner number 1 is quashed.
To arrive at the said companyclusion, the appellate Bench placed reliance on Rani Sati Kerosene Supply Company and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others1.
The facts which need to be exposited for adjudication of this appeal are that the first respondent was granted the licence for carrying on the business of superior kerosene oil as an agent by the Joint Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal in accordance with the paragraph 5 1 of the Control Order.
The learned Single Judge further directed that the agent shall maintain with utmost care an inventory of stocks and accounts for periodical submission to the authorities and the penalty amount should be deposited by 6.9.2013 and the said penalty amount shall be kept in a separate interest bearing account.
The monthly allocation of public distribution system of superior kerosene oil to the said respondent was fixed by the Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal at 1,82,000 litres per month.
On 10.8.2012 a physical inspection was carried out by the Area Inspector attached to the office of the Sub Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Burdwan for short, SCFS at the depot of the respondent.
It referred to paragraphs 27 and 29 of the said decision and thereafter came to hold thus For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we hold that the Sub Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Burdwan lawfully initiated the proceeding against the appellant writ petitioner number 1 by issuing show cause numberice but did number companyclude the same within 30 days as required under paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal being AST No.
Being of this view, it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Additionally, it was also put forth that the second show cause numberice on the self same allegations was untenable in law and accordingly prayer was made to withdraw and or rescind the numberice and take steps for disposal of the matter in terms of the provisions of the Control Order.
The submissions put forth by the first respondent before the Division Bench of the High Court were seriously companytested by the learned companynsel for the Department.
It was urged in the intra court appeal that the proceeding before the Director of Consumer Goods was patently without jurisdiction, for power of cancellation or suspension companyld only be exercised by the Director or District Magistrate having jurisdiction and in the case at hand the District Magistrate, Burdwan is the companypetent authority to exercise the power under paragraph 9 of the Control Order and number the Director of Consumer Goods that assuming the Director had jurisdiction, the proceeding that was initiated had lapsed after expiry of 30 days after the date of issuance of the show cause numberice by the Director and that in any case the proceeding was initiated by SCFS and he companyld number have sent the record to the Director after expiry of 30 days when the proceeding stood lapsed.
Thereafter, the Division Bench proceeded to deal with the issue whether the Director had passed the order imposing penalty within 30 days from the date of serving the show cause numberice in terms of paragraph 9 of the Control Order, for the same was served on the dealer on 12.8.2013.
As the factual matrix would further undrape, the Director of Consumer Goods, vide order dated 22.7.2013 narrated the facts in detail and came to hold that SCFS has the authority to ask for explanation regarding distribution of superior kerosene oil in his jurisdiction and that the Director of Consumer Goods being the Licensing Authority, can exercise the power to issue show cause numberice and after giving the delinquent agent a fair opportunity of being heard, pass appropriate orders.
Whether the order of cancellation or suspension of licence in terms of Paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order will become effective on the date of passing of the said order or when the said order is companymunicated to the companycerned party?
177/2013 whereby it has overturned the decision of the learned Single Judge requiring the respondent writ petitioner to knock at the doors of the alternative forum by way of appeal, on the foundation that the authority that had passed the adverse order against the first respondent had numberjurisdiction, and assuming he had the jurisdiction, it stood extinguished by expiration of the time limit stipulated in certain paragraphs of the West Bengal Kerosene Oil Control Order, 1968 for brevity, the Control Order , is called in question.
After scrutiny of the records, the Director of Consumer Goods issued a show cause numberice to the dealer on 26.6.2013.
The first respondent replied to the same on 28.6.2013 through his companynsel stating, inter alia, that under the Control Order, after the licence is issued to an agent by the Office of the Director, the District Magistrate having jurisdiction or any officer authorised by him, is alone empowered to look into the functioning of the said agency and to give directions to him and or initiate action against the companycerned agent.
The companycerned Inspector submitted the report to the SCFS stating that 71,494 litres of superior kerosene oil had been delivered in excess by the dealer.
25204 W of 2013.
After companyducting the enquiry, the SCFS forwarded the entire record to the District Controller, Food and Supplies Department, Burdwan, who in turn sent the entire case records to the Director of Consumer Goods for appropriate decision.
177 of 2013 before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench posed the following two questions Who is the companypetent authority to take disciplinary action either by cancellation or suspension of the licence of a S.K. Oil agent appointed in a district outside the Calcutta?
We further hold that the Director of Consumer Goods had numberjurisdiction and or authority to initiate any proceeding against the appellant writ petitioner number 1 in terms of paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order since the licence was granted to the appellant writ petitioner number 1 for carrying on business as S.K. Oil agent in the district of Burdwan which is outside Calcutta.
The SCFS afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer on 3.5.2013 and the same was availed of.
On receipt of the said show cause numberice, the first respondent submitted his explanation on 16.4.2013.
The companycerned Director analysed the factual matrix and in exercise of power companyferred on him under paragraph 9 ii of the Control Order imposed a penalty of Rs.26,08,816.00 and further directed reduction of monthly allocation of superior kerosene oil of the agent by 12,000 litres for a period of one year.
The learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.08.2013 referred to paragraph 10 of the Control Order which provides for an appeal to be preferred and accordingly directed that if the agent prefers an appeal by 6.9.2013, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same by 31.12.2013.
After posing the aforesaid two questions, the Division Bench took numbere of the fact that the respondent dealer was authorised to carry on the business as an agent of super kerosene oil in the district of Burdwan and the SCFS had issued a show cause to the respondent and instead of taking the final decision himself, forwarded the records to the Director of Consumer Goods for necessary action who issued a fresh show cause numberice on the self same allegations and passed a order on 22.07.2013 which was without jurisdiction in view of the companyjoint reading of the language employed in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Control Order.
In the result, the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by the Director of Consumer Goods cannot survive and is liable to be set aside since the said Director had numberauthority and or jurisdiction to pass any order under paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 in respect of S.K. Oil agent of Burdwan.
Dipak Misra, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the legal substantiality and acceptability of the judgment and order dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in AST No.
