RAEES AHMAD Versus RATIONING CONTROLER

1. GHULAM RASOOL K. SHAIKH, J. ‑The petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 11th October 1973, whereby the licence of the petitioner was cancelled and the shop sealed and the security deposit of Rs. 250 was forfeited by the authorities of the Food Department of the Government of Sind.

2. The petitioner was granted a licence authorising him to be retail distributor called as Ration Shop Keeper on 1‑1‑66 for one year up to 31‑12‑66. The security deposit of Rs. 250 was paid by the petitioner. The licence was liable to be cancelled in case of breach of the terms and conditions of the licence. The security deposit was also liable to be forfeited. The licence was renewable from year to year at the discretion of licensing authorities. The licence was renewed from time to time and on the last occasion it was renewed up to 31‑12‑73,

3. On 6‑10‑73 the Inspectors of the Food Department visited the ration shop of the petitioner and inspected the record. It appears that some irregu larities were detected. A report was, therefore, submitted and on the basis of that report the shop of the petitioner was sealed and the licence was cancelled. Simultaneously, the security deposit was forfeited to the Govern ment. Aggrieved by this the present petition was filed.

4. The only ground taken before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the action of the cancellation of the licence and the forfeiture of the security deposit was taken without notice to the petitioner the l principles of natural justice were violated and, therefore, the action was without jurisdiction. We entirely agree with this contention. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General, could not meet this plea. It was, however, urged by him that the petitioner was orally informed before the action was taken. In the first place there is nothing on record to support this contention and secondly the verbal communication is not enough. The B notice ought to have been in writing and the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity to refute the allegations.

5. So far the reliefs are concerned, we are unable to grant any relief with regard to the cancellation of the licence as the period for which the licence was renewed, has already expired, and no direction can be issued to the licensing authority for the renewal of the licence. It is open to the petitioner to approach the licensing authority to apply for the renewal of the licence or for the grant of a fresh licence, as the case may be. So far the deposit of the security and the sealing of the shop are concerned, the action is of no legal effect. The shop must be unsealed. It is, however, open to the authority concerned to take further action after due notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity to explain the circumstances which had been taken into consideration for the forfeiture of the security deposit and the sealing of the shop.

6. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

7. S. A. H. Order accordingly.