Jharkhand High Court
Mohni Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3142 of 2022
---
Mohni Devi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer
Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra
4. The District Supply Officer, Chatra
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra
6. The Block Supply Officer, Simariya, District- Chatra
7. The Circle Officer, Simariya, District- Chatra
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate
Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s. Ajit Kumar & Amrit Raj Kisku, A.Cs. to G.A.-V
Order No. 04 Dated: 03.01.2023
Office is directed to correct the description of the respondent no. 2 as
"The Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer
Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi" in the cause title of the present
writ petition.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated
25.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra (the respondent
no. 3) in P.D.S. Appeal (not numbered by the appellate authority)
preferred by the petitioner against the order as contained in memo no.
394 dated 10.03.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra (the
respondent no. 5) cancelling the petitioner's PDS license No. 03/1999 as
the said appeal has been rejected without assigning any reason.
3. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on
24.02.2010, the respondent no. 5 inspected the PDS shop of the petitioner
and on finding certain irregularities, suspended her aforesaid PDS license
vide order dated 25.02.2010 calling upon her to submit explanation as to
why the said shop was found closed during the inspection and list of
beneficiaries under "Antyodaya Scheme" as well as B.P.L. was not
displayed on the notice board. Subsequently, the said license was
cancelled by the respondent no. 5 vide memo no. 394 dated 10.03.2010.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cancellation of
PDS license of the petitioner was passed on false and fabricated allegation
levelled by a co-villager-Jhabbar Sao. An F.I.R. being Simariya P.S. Case
No. 19 of 2010 was also lodged on 24.02.2010 against the petitioner and
others under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The
petitioner faced the criminal trial and was acquitted vide judgment dated
07.09.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in G.R.
No. 160 of 2010. The petitioner being poor illiterate lady thereafter could
not take immediate steps seeking restoration of her PDS license. However
in the year 2021, she requested the respondent authorities for restoring
the said PDS license. In the said process, the Block Development Officer,
Simariya, vide letter dated 21.06.2021 (Anneuxre-6 to the writ petition)
made recommendation to the respondent no. 5 for restoration of
petitioner's PDS License No. 03/1999 mentioning that the petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal trial, however no step for restoration of the same
was taken by the authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal
before the respondent no. 3 for restoration of her license, however the
same was rejected by the respondent no. 3 merely making an
endorsement "rejected" on the body of memo of appeal itself, a copy of
which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even if the said
appeal preferred by the petitioner was time barred, the respondent no. 3
being an appellate authority after registering the appeal, was required to
pass a speaking order. It is further submitted that though after passing of
judgment dated 07.09.2017 whereby the petitioner was acquitted of the
criminal charges, some delay occurred in pursuing the matter for
restoration of her PDS license, however during the intervening period
between 2020 and early 2022, entire country suffered Covid-19 pandemic
due to which the petitioner could not take steps for filing appeal before
the respondent no. 3. The impugned order dated 25.03.2022 passed by
the respondent no. 3 being arbitrary and illegal is liable to be set aside.
6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A.-V appearing on behalf of the
respondents, while referring to supplementary counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 7, submits that in fact at the time of
admission of the said appeal, nobody turned up and considering the delay
in filing the same, the endorsement of rejection of the said appeal was
made by the respondent no. 3 on the body of memo of appeal itself.
However, an apology has been tendered by the respondent no. 3 for
making such endorsement.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
8. This Court is primarily concerned with the manner in which the
respondent no. 3 has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the respondent no. 5
whereby her PDS license was cancelled. Undoubtedly, there was
considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in preferring the said
appeal before the respondent no. 3, however the said respondent being a
statutory appellate authority was required to follow due procedures i.e.,
providing number in the said appeal, to take up the same for consideration
and to pass an appropriate order assigning reason for rejecting the same.
Making an endorsement "rejected" on the first page of memo of appeal,
that too, without providing any number in the same, shows serious lapse
on the part of the respondent no. 3.
9. There are plethora of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as this Court that the administrative/quasi-judicial authorities
while passing the orders are required to follow due procedure and to pass
speaking order after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties so as to show fairness and transparency as well as
application of mind while taking decision.
10. Hence, the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the
respondent no. 3 cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly
set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 to pass a fresh
speaking order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner/her representative within a period of two months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner
is also at liberty to file an application seeking condonation of delay in
preferring the said appeal.
11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh/
