Sugandhi Kumari vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3990 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1187 of 2020
     ======================================================

Sugandhi Kumari, wife of Madan Patel, resident of Kobeya, ward 2, Kubeya

P.S. Harshidhi, East Champaran, District- Motihari.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food and Civil Supply Government

of Bihar New Secretariat Patna.

2. The District Magistrate East Champaran Motihari.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer Areraj East Champaran Motihari.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH CAV JUDGMENT Date : 06-08-2021

The instant case has been taken up for

consideration through the mode of Video

conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on

account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social

distancing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for

quashing the order dated 27.10.2018 passed by

the Sub-Divisional Officer, Areraj, East Champaran

whereby and whereunder the licence of the public Patna High Court CWJC No.1187 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

distribution system shop of the petitioner bearing

licence no. 4/2016 has been cancelled.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the

petitioner is a public distribution system licence

dealer, who is running a PDS shop. A show cause

notice dated 4.10.2018 was issued to the

petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Areraj, East

Champaran, requiring the petitioner to submit her

clarification / reply with regard to the irregularities

found during the course of inspection and in fact,

the inspection report was also enclosed therein.

The petitioner had then filed her reply dated

8.10.2018. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Areraj, East

Champaran, had found the reply of the petitioner

to be unsatisfactory, hence, by a second cause

notice dated 13.10.2018, the petitioner was asked

to submit her reply as to why her licence be not

cancelled. The petitioner had again submitted a

detailed reply dated 22.10.2018, whereafter the

impugned order dated 27.10.2018 has been

passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Areraj, East

Champaran, cancelling the PDS licence of the Patna High Court CWJC No.1187 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

petitioner herein. The petitioner had then filed an

appeal bearing Appeal No. 19 of 2018 before the

learned court of Collector-cum-District Magistrate,

East Champaran, Motihari, however, the same has

also stood dismissed by an order dated

29.11.2019.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

raised two issues, firstly that the inquiry report was

not supplied to the petitioner and secondly that the

order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Areraj,

East Champaran, dated 27.10.2018 is an

unreasoned order, hence, stands vitiated in the

eyes of law.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

Respondent-State has submitted that a photocopy

of the inquiry report was enclosed with the said

show cause notice dated 4.10.2018 and in fact, in

her show cause reply dated 8.10.2018, the

petitioner has nowhere raised the issue of the

inquiry report having not been supplied to her. It is

further pointed out that in the reply submitted by Patna High Court CWJC No.1187 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

the petitioner to the second cause notice on

22.10.2018 as well, no issue was raised with

regard to non-supply of the inquiry report, hence,

raising of such a non-existent issue, at this

juncture, in the present writ petition, is not only

contrary to the records but also amounts to

misleading this Court. It is further submitted that

both the original order dated 27.10.2018 and the

appellate order dt. 29.11.2019 are well reasoned

and a speaking order, hence, require no

interference by this Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and perused the materials on record from

which it is apparent that the inspection report was

definitely supplied to the petitioner along with the

show cause notice dated 4.10.2018 and the best

proof thereof is that the petitioner, in her replies

dated 8.10.2018 and 22.10.2018, had nowhere

raised the issue regarding non-supply of the inquiry

report, hence, it can safely be inferred that the

petitioner had been supplied with the inquiry

report and now, a false plea has been raised in the Patna High Court CWJC No.1187 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

present writ petition regarding non-supply of the

inquiry report only with a mala fide intention of

somehow obtaining a favourable order from this

Court, which is deprecated. This Court further finds

from a bare perusal of the order dated 27.10.2018

passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Areraj, East

Champaran, as also the appellate order dated

29.11.2019 passed by the Collector-cum-District

Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari, that the

same are well reasoned, self-speaking and furnish

cogent and succinct reasons for arriving at a

decision regarding cancellation of the PDS licence

of the petitioner, hence, in the opinion of this

Court, the impugned orders dated 27.10.2018 and

29.11.2019 do not suffer from any infirmity.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances

of the case and for the reasons mentioned

hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the present

writ petition, hence, the same stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

Ajay/-

AFR/NAFR AFR Patna High Court CWJC No.1187 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

CAV DATE 30.07.2021 Uploading Date 06.08.2021 Transmission Date NA