ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 13.2.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Licensing Authority and the appellate order dated 28.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner-cum-appellate authority whereby the license of the petitioner of Kerosene Oil has been cancelled in exercise of powers conferred by Bihar Trade Articles (Licence and Unification) Order, 1984.
2. Petitioner was carrying on business in the premises taken on lease and the license under the Unification order being license No. 13/90 granted by the licensing authority. Petitioner's case is that since the business was carried out in lease premises, the petitioner applied for permission for change of place of business to Kasidih within Khata No. 20 on the lands belonging to his son. On the basis of the said application the Chief Controller of Explosives issued a letter asking the petitioner to furnish various details. The petitioner also filed an application requesting for no objection certificate and under the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi no objection certificate was issued on 25.11.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the required details before the Chief Controller of Explosives by way of a letter dated 23.12.1999. However, in the mean time the Sub- Divisional Officer, Ranchi suddenly inspected the premises of the petitioner on 13.7.2000 and a report was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranch alleging various irregularities. A seizure list was also prepared. Thereafter the licence of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 29.7.2000 and the petitioner was served with a memo dated 7.8.2000 issued by the Deputy Commissioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence of the petitioner be not cancelled for violating the terms and conditions of the licence. The petitioner filed his show cause denying each and every allegation and stating that the allegations are baseless and unfounded.
3. After considering the show cause the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 13.3.2001, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Commissioner who in terms of the order dated 28.12.2002, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before this Court being WP (C) No. 5738/2001 which was dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.2.2002. Thereafter the petitioner preferred LPA No. 149 of 2002 which was allowed on 11.7.2002 holding that the appellate authority was required to give reasons and accordingly the matter was remitted to the appellate authority. The appellate authority thereupon heard the matter and by a fresh order dated 28.12.2002 dismissed the appeal by assigning reasons. The order of the Deputy Commissioner and the fresh order passed by the Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority are impugned in this writ application.
4. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that the licensing authority never approved change of place of business of the petitioner since the petitioner never applied for change of place of business and the trade licence issued in his name.
5. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order and the seizure as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer is not authorized to conduct search and seizure. Further the Sub-Divisional Officer being the licensing authority is not supposed to conduct search and seizure of the premises. Learned counsel then submitted that theDeputy Commissioner-cum-LicensingAuthority considered only two charge out of17 charges and held that these two chargehave been found correct and on the basisof these charges the licence of the petitionerhas been cancelled. Surprisingly the Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority insteadof dealing with two charges, dealt with allthe 17 charges in the appeal and held thatall the charges have been found true.Learned counsel relied upon the decisionsof the Patna High Court in the case of Kanhaiya Sah v. State of Bihar and Ors.,1992 (1) PLJR 716, and in the case ofKailash Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Stateof Bihar and also in the case of DiwakarSharma v. State of Bihar, reported in 1998(1) PLJR, 52 and 103 respectively.
6. The first contention of Mr. Prasad is that search and seizure having been conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer who is the Licensing Authority has not let to stand. Admittedly, the petitioner was holding a wholesale licence granted by the Deputy Commissioner who is the Licensing Authority. Clause 30 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licence and Unification) Order, 1984 (in short Unification Order) empowers not only the Licensing Authority but also various other officers including the District Supply Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer to make search and seizure in respect of the business premises.
7. The second submission of Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is the although the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Licensing Authority cancelled the licence by holding that two charges out of 17 charges against the petitioner have been proved but the Appellate Authority exceeded his jurisdiction in considering all the 17 charges and held that all the charges have been proved. The submission does not appear to be correct. The Licensing Authority discussed all the 17 charges and held that petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the licence, inasmuch as he has changed the place of business and shifted underground storage tank of Kerosene Oil without obtaining permission and licence of the Chief Controller of Explosive and further failed to give satisfactory explanation with regard to all other charges.
8. Kerosene Oil being an explosive substance as defined 'in the Explosive Act a person has to obtain licence for dealing in the business of Kerosene Oil or for storage of Kerosene Oil in a particular place under the provisions of Explosive Act and the Rules made there under. It is the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of shifting his place of business to Kasidih, he made an application to the Chief Controller of Explosive who directed the petitioner to submit necessary documents. Copy of the letter of the Chief Controller of Explosive, East Circle Calcutta has been annexed as Annexure-1 of the writ application. By the said letter, petitioner was directed to submit necessary papers. Petitioner was further directed not to commission the business on the new place of service station/storage shed till a licence is granted by the Officer of the Controller of Explosive, Petitioner totally bank upon the so-called letter of permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner. Copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. In the said certificate issued under the signature of District Arms Magistrate, it is mentioned that the department has no objection in shifting of place of storage of Kerosene Oil. This certificate was required by the Controller of Explosive for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner for the grant of licence of storage and installation of underground tank of the explosive substance, namely, Kerosene Oil. Admittedly, no licence till date has been granted by the Controller of Explosive for the shifting of underground tank/storage of Kerosene Oil. Admittedly, without licence of the Controller of Explosive, petitioner shifted his place of business and installed an underground tank at a new place for the storage of Kerosene Oil. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Licensing Authority has noticed that till date petitioner did not produce the licence of the Controller of Explosive permitted him to shift the place of storage of Kerosene Oil. The Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority also held in his order that petitioner even did not produce before him any documents issued by the Controller of Explosive permitting the petitioner to shift the underground tank and storage of explosive substance namely, Kerosene Oil and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the licence. Nowhere in the writ petition petitioner has stated that after making application before the Controller of Explosive any licence of permission has been granted by the Explosive Department for shifting of underground tank and storage of Kerosene Oil from a new place. Petitioner dealing in the business of explosive substance ought to have strictly complied the mandatory requirements of law. The Licensing Authority and the Appellate authority therefore rightly held that the petitioner not only violated the mandatory provisions of Explosive Act and the Rules but also violated the terms and conditions of the licence.
9. So far, other charges are concerned, the Commissioner-cum- Appellate Authority has discussed each and every charges separately and recorded a finding that those charges have been either proved or the petitioner failed to prove that he has not violated the terms and conditions or the licence. These findings need no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, Ido not find any reason to interfere withorders passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Licensing Authority and theCommissioner-cum-Appellate Authority.No relief can be granted to the petitioner inthis writ application, which is, accordingly,dismissed.