Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Krishna Kumar vs State of Bihar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Feb 20, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/120889

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/120889
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Aftab Alam, J.
Decided On: Feb 20, 2001
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 2369 of 2001
Subject: ;Commercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Clarification) Order, 1984 - Clause 11(1)--Criminal case against petitioner, a retail licence-holder--Commission of irregularities in distribution of foodgrains allotted to him--Trial ended in acquittal--Cancellation of retail licence--Not justified in view of fact that trial of petiti...

Key legal issue: ;Commercial
Acts & sections: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna Kumar

Advocate Mr. Griyaghey

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984

Court's Analysis

Prior History: Aftab Alam, J.
1. The petitioner held a retail licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification Order), 1984 and a dealership under the Public Distribution System. He was made an accused in a criminal case in which allegations were that he committed irregularities in distribution of the foodgrains allotted to him. The trial ended in his acquittal. Nevertheless, the licensing authority cancelled his licence issued under the unification order. In appeal, the order passed by the licen

Excerpt

bihar trade articles (licences clarification) order, 1984 - clause 11(1)--criminal case against petitioner, a retail licence-holder--commission of irregularities in distribution of foodgrains allotted to him--trial ended in acquittal--cancellation of retail licence--not justified in view of fact that trial of petitioner had ended in his acquittal--impugned order cancelling retail licence set aside--instant order would restore petitioner's licence under unification order--open to petitioner to carry on his private trade or business within the terms and conditions of licence and provisions of unification order--but that order would not bind respondent-authorities to restore dealership of petitioner under public distribution system. - - griyaghey is well founded so far as retail licence of the petitioner is concerned......the order passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority, cancelling his licence though he was acquitted in the criminal trial were illegal and unsustainable in law.3. the submission made by mr. griyaghey is well founded so far as retail licence of the petitioner is concerned. the licence could not be cancelled in view of the fact that the trial of the petitioner had ended in his acquittal. the impugned orders, therefore, insofar as they relate to cancelling the retail licence granted to the petitioner under the unification order are set aside.4. this is, however, not the end of, the matter. the grant of a retail licence under the unification order is one thing and the grant of dealership underthe public distribution system is something quite different. it is true that for a dealership under the public distribution system, the dealer must have a retail licence but the converse evidently is not true and it cannot be said that every one having a retail licence must also be given a dealership under the public distribution system. the dealership under the public distribution system is simply an agency and would be governed by the law of agency in which the government is the principal and the dealer is the agent. if for any reason, the principal no longer wishes to continue some one as dealer, the dealership cannot be claimed as a matter of right.5. in the result, therefore, this order will restore the petitioner's licence underthe unification order on the basis of which it will be open to the petitioner to carry on his private trade or business within the terms and conditions of the licence and the provisions of the unification order. this order, however, will not bound the respondent-authorities to restore the dealership of the petitioner under the public distribution system.6. this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

Full Judgment

Aftab Alam, J.

1. The petitioner held a retail licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification Order), 1984 and a dealership under the Public Distribution System. He was made an accused in a criminal case in which allegations were that he committed irregularities in distribution of the foodgrains allotted to him. The trial ended in his acquittal. Nevertheless, the licensing authority cancelled his licence issued under the unification order. In appeal, the order passed by the licensing authority was affirmed.

2. Mr. Griyaghey, learned Counsel for the petitioner-submitted that under Clause 11(1) of the Unification order, a licence could be cancelled only in case of conviction in a criminal case and therefore, the order passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority, cancelling his licence though he was acquitted in the criminal trial were illegal and unsustainable in law.

3. The submission made by Mr. Griyaghey is well founded so far as retail licence of the petitioner is concerned. The licence could not be cancelled in view of the fact that the trial of the petitioner had ended in his acquittal. The impugned orders, therefore, insofar as they relate to cancelling the retail licence granted to the petitioner under the unification order are set aside.

4. This is, however, not the end of, the matter. The grant of a retail licence under the unification order is one thing and the grant of dealership underthe Public Distribution System is something quite different. It is true that for a dealership under the Public Distribution System, the dealer must have a retail licence but the converse evidently is not true and it cannot be said that every one having a retail licence must also be given a dealership under the Public Distribution System. The dealership under the Public Distribution System is simply an agency and would be governed by the law of agency in which the Government is the principal and the dealer is the agent. If for any reason, the principal no longer wishes to continue some one as dealer, the dealership cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

5. In the result, therefore, this order will restore the petitioner's licence underthe unification order on the basis of which it will be open to the petitioner to carry on his private trade or business within the terms and conditions of the licence and the provisions of the unification order. This order, however, will not bound the respondent-authorities to restore the dealership of the petitioner under the Public Distribution System.

6. This writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2001 Same Parties Krishna Kumar vs State of Bihar and ors. Same Subject ;Commercial Same Judge Aftab Alam, J. Acts & Sections Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 7; Bihar Trade Art...

;Commercial