LexRANJIT KUMAR MURMU versus M/S LACHMI NARAYAN BHOMROJ & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 4 S.C.R. 263 RANJIT KUMAR MURMU V. M/S LACHMI NARAYAN BHOMROJ & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7263 of 2012) APRIL 15, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 - Paras 8 A B to 11 - A/location of monthly quota to kerosene oil dealers - C Quota allotted to appellant-dealer reduced by the Director of Consumer Goods - Order upheld by District Magistrate - Appeal· before Principal Secretary! Commissioner of Food and Supply Department which set aside the order of District Magistrate - Jurisdiction of Principal Secretary/Commissioner o to entertain the appeal - Challenged - Held: Order passed by District Magistrate, could not be termed as an order under para 8 or 9 of the Control Order and thus, no appeal was maintainable under para 10 of the Control Order before the Principal Secretary! Commissioner - Even if the order of E District Magistrate was passed under para 11 of the Control Order, such order was not appealable under para 10 or before the Principal Secretary !Commissioner - The State has the inherent power to alter or to set aside any order passed by the District Magistrate but it should follow the procedure as F prescribed by the law - From the order passed by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner, it is apparent that the order was passed in capacity of his designated post and not on behalf of the State - High Court justified in holding that the Principal Secretary !Commissioner was not competent to hear the G appeal. The respondent, a Kerosene Dealer under the provisions of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, had been allotted a specified quota of Kerosene Oil 263 H 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R. A per month. The Director of Consumer Goods, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal passed order whereby the respondents' monthly quota got enhanced while quota allocated to another dealer, viz. the appellant was correspondingly reduced. The District 8 Magistrate, the competent authority under the Control Order, upheld the allocation of monthly quota made to the respondents and the appellant by the Director of Consumer Goods. The appellant filed writ petition challenging the order C of the District Magistrate, but later withdrew the same and filed appeal before the Principal Secretary and Commissioner Food, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal who set aside the order of D the District Magistrate. The respondents filed writ petition challenging the maintainability of the appeal and jurisdiction of the Principal Secretary to entertain such appeal. The High Court set aside the order passed by the Principal E Secretary and Commissioner of the Food and Supplies Department of the State Government holding that it was not competent to hear the appeal and therefore the instant appeal. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Under paragraph 8 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, the Director or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, are vested with the power to refuse to grant or renew a licence following the G procedure as mentioned therein. On the other hand, Paragraph 9 of the Control Order deals with the power of Director/District Magistrate for cancellation or suspension of license in case of any malpractice or contravention of any provision of this Order. Any person H aggrieved by the Order passed under Paragraph 8 or RANJIT KUMAR MURMU v. LACHMI NARAYAN · 265 BHOMROJ Paragraph 9 of the Control Order may within 30 days A prefer an appeal under Paragraph 10. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [269-C-E; 270-B] 1.2. The impugned order passed by the District Magistrate cannot be termed as an order passed under 8 Paragraph 8 or Paragraph 9 of the Control Order. In such a situation, no appeal is maintainable under Paragraph 10 before the Principal Secretary or the Commissioner, Food and Supply Department, Government of West Bengal. Even if it is assumed that the order of the District C . Magistrate was under Paragraph 11 of the Control Order, such an order is not appealable under Paragraph 10 or before the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Food and Supply Department, Govt. of West Bengal. [Paras 17, 18] [271-G; 272-A-B] 2. The State has indeed the inherent power to alter or to set aside any order passed by the District Magistrate D but it should follow the procedure as prescribed by the law, such an orde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.