1 W.P. (C) No. 2886 of 2013 (2025:JHHC:21743) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2886 of 2013 ------ Bhuna Devi, wife of Kapil Das, resident of village Barmasia, PO – Barmasia, PS – Sraiyahat, District – Dumka. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, PO , PS & District – Dumka. 3. District Supply Officer, PO , PS & District – Dumka. 4. Sub Divisional Officer, PO , PS & District – Dumka. 5. Block Supply Officer, Sriyahat, PO & PS – Sriyahat, District – Dumka. 6. Block Supply Inspector, Sriyahat, PO & PS – Sriyahat, District – Dumka. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the order dated 06.09.2011 passed in RMR Case No. 53 / 2009- 2010 by the respondent no. 2 by which the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the respondent no. 4 vide Memo No. 1844 and order no. 278 of 2008 by which the Public Distribution Shop License of the petitioner being License No. 39 of 2000 for Village - Baramania, Block - Sriyahat, has been 2 W.P. (C) No. 2886 of 2013 cancelled. Prayer has also been made to cancel the said order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the respondent no. 4 and consequential reliefs. 3. The brief fact of this case is that the petitioner had a Public Distribution Shop License No. 39 of 2000. The Block Supply Inspector being the respondent no. 6 lodged an FIR against the petitioner basing upon which Sriyahat P.S. Case No. 192 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1070 of 2008 was registered involving the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and vide judgment dated 15.05.2009, the petitioner was acquitted in the said G.R. Case No. 1070 of 2008 passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that before acquittal of the petitioner in the said G.R. Case No. 1070 of 2008, the respondent no. 4, vide Memo No. 1844 dated 30.12.2008 cancelled the license of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded that such cancellation of license by the respondent no. 4 was made on the basis of investigation report of the respondent no. 5, making serious allegation. It is the further case of the petitioner that for the selfsame allegation, petitioner has been acquitted in G.R. Case No. 1070 of 2008 by giving her benefit of doubt, hence on the basis of selfsame allegation, the act of the respondent no. 4 on cancelling the license of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further case of the petitioner that though in the revision application before the respondent no. 2, the petitioner intimated the respondent no. 2 that by that time she was already acquitted of the charges in G.R. Case No. 1070 of 2008 but the respondent no. 2 erroneously dismissed the said revision application. 3 W.P. (C) No. 2886 of 2013 Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner, be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the respondent no. 6 found the petitioner on 17.07.2008 carrying 15 packets of wheat approximately 50kg each packet and 29 packets of rice as well as 20kg BPL food grains loaded in a Tempo and carrying the same towards village Dighi which is opposite to the village Baramania. So, it is obvious that the said articles were taken with an intention for black - marketing. Besides, several Ration-card holders also complained in writing to the respondent no. 6 that the petitioner is not distributing kerosene oil every month nor she is supplying food-grains every month; instead she supplies food-grains once only in three months. Besides the petitioner was threatening to institute false criminal cases to the Ration-card holders and these allegations have got nothing to do with the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for which the petitioner was facing trial. It is next submitted that basing upon the report submitted by the respondent no. 6, respondent no. 4 cancelled the PDS license on the ground of irregularities in supply of food-grains to the beneficiary Ration -card holders vide Memo No. 1844 and order no. 278 of 2008, dated 30.12.2008. 6. Learned counsel for the State further submits that several Green-card holders, Red-card holders and Antyodaya card holders complained that the writ petitioner has always been misbehaving with them and she is not supplying the food-grains every month. It is next submitted by the State that the contention of the petitioner that she was not issued with any show –cause 4 W.P. (C) No. 2886 of 2013 or was not given any opportunity of being heard, is fallacious because after issuing of show- cause dated 30.07.2008, proper opportunity was given to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner also submitted her explanation and on 24.11.2008, a second explanation was also called for from the writ petitioner and she has also submitted her reply to the second explanation and finding such explanation to be not satisfactory; then only the license was cancelled, as the petitioner has violated the conditions of her license by not supplying food- grains and kerosene oil to the beneficiaries and needy persons within the stipulated time and also indulged in black-marketing. 7. It is then submitted that the judgment in a criminal case by which the petitioner was acquitted by giving her the benefit of doubt cannot be binding upon the respondents more so when the grounds upon which the license of the petitioner has been cancelled, was not only confined to the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act but also included several other allegations which independently also amounts to violation of the conditions of the license for running the PDS shop, which amounts to irregularities and the indulgence in which makes the petitioner liable for cancellation of the said license. 8. Though, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to her writ petition after filing of the counter affidavit by the respondent no. 2 to 6 but nowhere she has disputed the averments made in the counter affidavit that she was given opportunity of at least twice, to put forth her grievances as she has filed reply to both the show cause notices issued to her by the respondents. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that this writ petition being without merit, be dismissed. 5 W.P. (C) No. 2886 of 2013 9. Having heard the submissions at the bar and after going through the materials at record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the standard of proof required in a criminal case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas the standard of proof required in any civil proceeding is the principle of preponderance of probabilities. It is also a settled principle of law that the decision of a Court in a criminal proceeding is not binding upon any authority adjudicating a civil matter. Now coming to the facts of this case, it is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution in the connected criminal case examined three witnesses. All the three witnesses became hostile to the case of the prosecution and did not support the case of the prosecution. Basing upon such facts of the case, the SDJM, Dumka, gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and acquitted her in G.R. Case No. 1070 of 2008. It is pertinent to mention here that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled not only because she was indulging in black-marketing rather besides that there was also other serious allegations against her of indulging in illegalities and violating the terms and conditions of the license; by not distributing the food – grains and kerosene oil to the beneficiaries to whom they were intended to be supplied through PDS. The concerned authorities who were public servant on being satisfied upon the materials available on the record, have come to the conclusion that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions and cancelled the PDS license of the petitioner. 10. In view of the categorical averments made in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that she was never given any opportunity of being heard before cancellation of her license because, there is categorical averment in the counter 6 W.P. (C) No. 2886 of 2013 affidavit that at least twice she was served with show cause notice and she submitted reply to such notices. Hence, this contention of the petitioner that she was not given any opportunity of being heard before cancellation of her license, has no legs to stand. Now in view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondent no. 2 or respondent no. 4 warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th July, 2025 AFR/ Aditi