2004 (6) TMI 640 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Director of Consumer Goods to cancel an agency license.
2. Unauthorized interference by the Minister in the statutory duties of the Director.
3. Validity of the order based on the timing of communication.
4. Allegations of falsification and misconduct by the Director.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of the Director of Consumer Goods to Cancel an Agency License:
The petitioners challenged the suspension-cum-show cause notice and subsequent cancellation of their agency license by the Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal, arguing that the Director lacked the authority to cancel an agency license in the District of Purulia. They contended that only the District Magistrate had such authority. The court, however, clarified that a conjoint reading of Paragraphs 4 and 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, confirms that the Director of Consumer Goods is indeed empowered to cancel the license of an agent for misconduct.

2. Unauthorized Interference by the Minister in the Statutory Duties of the Director:
The court examined whether the Minister for Food and Supplies could direct the Director to send a file for approval before making a final decision. It was found that the Minister had indeed interfered with the duties of the Director, which was beyond his statutory authority. The Control Order, a delegated piece of legislation, vested the responsibility to investigate and decide on the cancellation of licenses solely with the Director. The Minister's interference was deemed unauthorized and a violation of the statutory process. The Director was also criticized for seeking the Minister's approval, which delayed the communication of the order to the petitioners.

3. Validity of the Order Based on the Timing of Communication:
The petitioners argued that the order of cancellation, communicated to them by fax on January 30, 2004, was invalid as it was beyond 30 days from the suspension order dated December 10, 2003. The court agreed, emphasizing that the date of communication is crucial for the validity of the order. According to Paragraph 9 of the Control Order, the final order must be made and communicated within 30 days from the suspension. The court held that the order of cancellation should be deemed to have been passed on January 30, 2004, when it was faxed to the petitioners, thus rendering it invalid as it was beyond the stipulated 30 days.

4. Allegations of Falsification and Misconduct by the Director:
The court found substantial evidence of misconduct by the Director, who falsely claimed that the order was tendered to a representative of the petitioners on January 9, 2004, and subsequently refused. This claim was not reflected in the records initially but appeared later, suggesting interpolation. The Director also avoided filing an affidavit by falsely stating he was on election duty in Manipur, while he was actually in Kolkata. The court condemned these actions and emphasized that the statutory requirements of the Control Order were not followed, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order dated January 9, 2004, canceling the license of the petitioner No. 1, and revoked the suspension order dated December 10, 2003. The respondents were directed to immediately restore the supply of kerosene to the petitioner No. 1. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 20,000 to be borne equally by the Minister and the Director personally, and allowed the petitioners to file a separate suit for damages. The court refused the State respondents' request for a stay of the order.