Divisional Commissioner must independently verify disputed certificates before deciding PDS dealership cancellation.

The petitioner held P.D.S. Dealership Licence No. 70/2018 for a shop within Ghaillarh Panchayat, District Madhepura, pursuant to a selection process initiated by a general notice dated 5 August 2017.

Following objections by Respondent No. 6 before the Public Grievance Redressal Forum, the authorities cancelled the petitioner’s licence on the allegation that he had submitted a fake matriculation certificate.

The petitioner contended that the Sanskrit Siksha Board had issued a certificate incorrectly mentioning another person’s name as his father, and that he had subsequently produced a corrected certificate showing his father’s name as Mukhlal Ram.

The Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa dismissed the petitioner’s revision and upheld the cancellation order. The petitioner consequently invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Whether the Commissioner’s order dismissing the petitioner’s revision against cancellation of his P.D.S. dealership licence was sustainable when the alleged discrepancy in the educational certificate had not been independently and adequately examined.

Whether the matter should be remitted to the Divisional Commissioner for verification of the genuineness of the certificates and a fresh, reasoned determination after hearing the affected parties.

The Court applied the principles of fair administrative adjudication, including observance of natural justice, consideration of relevant documentary evidence, independent application of mind, and issuance of a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court held that the competent authority must verify the genuineness of the disputed certificate and adjudicate the matter after giving the concerned parties an opportunity to present their documents and grounds.

The cancellation was based on the authorities’ conclusion that the petitioner had submitted a fake matriculation certificate.

However, the petitioner placed reliance on another certificate indicating that the discrepancy resulted from an incorrect entry concerning his father’s name rather than fabrication by him.

Since the genuineness and evidentiary value of the competing certificates had not been properly examined, and the Commissioner had dismissed the revision without adequately considering the relevant documents, the High Court found that a fresh determination by the appropriate authority was necessary.

The Court therefore set aside the Commissioner’s order and directed a rehearing with notice to both the petitioner and Respondent No. 6.

The Commissioner was directed to issue notice to the petitioner and Respondent No. 6, require them to appear with all relevant documents within one month of receiving the Court’s order, and decide the matter independently after verifying the genuineness of the certificates.

A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within three months thereafter, without being influenced by the earlier order.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.