Jharkhand High Court
Seema Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 389 of 2022
-----
Seema Kumari... .... .... Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella. ... .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
-----
For the Appellant(s) :Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate.
For the State: : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP-I.
-----
5/Dated: 02.05.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the
following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
By filing this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent, the appellant-writ petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.7.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 3557 of 2020
was dismissed.
2. The writ petitioner has filed the petition with a prayer to issue writ in the
nature of mandamus quashing the order dated 10.7.2020 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Seraikella -Kharsawan in Misc. Case No. 21/2017-18 i.e. Annexure-
7 to the appeal, whereby, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed confirming the order
dated 7.10.2016 passed by the S.D.O., Seraikella i.e. respondent No. 3, canceling
the licence of the petitioner on the ground that her mother has also been granted a
licence under the Public Distribution Scheme.
3. The learned Single Judge did not look into the matter and completely
ignore the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 7171
of 2016, decided on 31.10.2017, wherein the similar question arose. The learned
Single Judge in that case took into consideration the Division Bench Judgment
delivered in the case of Lal Babu Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and Anr.,
reported in 1989 BLJ 397 and in para-9 came to the conclusion, which reads as
under;
"9. Thus, that part of the impugned order dated 7.10.2016,
whereby PDS Licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on
the ground that her mother has also been holding the PDS
Licence, cannot be sustained in law and thus, the same is
hereby set-aside. However, other part of the order, whereby
the PDS Licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on the
ground of violation of terms and conditions of the licence is
concerned, the same involving appreciation of facts, I am not
inclined to observe anything on merit on the said issue at
present, giving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of
efficacious/alternative remedy of appeal provided under
Section 28 of the Unification Order, 1984."
4. The second part of the order is not applicable in this case. Moreover,
there is specific ratio decided by the learned Single Judge in the earlier case that
only on the ground of relation having a PDS Licence cannot lead to cancellation of
PDS licence granted to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of
the writ petition, order of which is impugned before us, should have referred the
matter to the larger Bench, if he disagrees with the findings or he would have
disposed of the case holding that the order passed by the earlier Bench is per
incurium, if at all such provision is applicable in the case.
5. Since the matter has not been decided on merit, we find it appropriate
to remand the application for a fresh hearing to the learned Single Judge.
6. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 12.7.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3557 of 2020 is hereby set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for hearing afresh
and disposal according to law and as per the observation made .
7. Let the matter be listed before the assigned Bench.
8. There shall be no orders as to costs.
9. Urgent certified copies as per Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Anu/-Cp2. (Ananda Sen, J.)
