Arun Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 5732 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10410 of 2020
     ======================================================

Arun Kumar Singh, S/o Late Jagarnath Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Madhaul, P.O. and P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

3. The Collector, Sitamarhi.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sitamarhi.

5. The District Supply Officer, Sitamarhi.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Riga, Dist. Sitamarhi.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Kumari Sujata Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anisul Haque, A.C. to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH)

Date : 01-12-2021

The petitioner's licence to run a shop under Public

Distribution System (P.D.S.) has been cancelled by an order dated

21.10.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pupri-cum-

Licensing Authority on the allegation of certain irregularities

committed by the petitioner. His appeal against the said order

came to be rejected by an order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the

Collector, Sitamarhi, in Supply Appeal No.102 of 2016. A revision

application preferred by the petitioner before the Divisional Patna High Court CWJC No.10410 of 2020 dt.01-12-2021

Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, giving rise to P.D.S.

Revision Case No.240/2019, too has been dismissed by an order

dated 10.01.2020. These are the orders which are under challenge

in the present writ application.

2. It appears from the averments made in the writ

application and the documents brought on record that the

petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause against the

proposed cancellation of the licence. He was given adequate

opportunity to submit his explanation, which he availed. His

explanation was, however, not found satisfactory and accordingly,

the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order dated

21.10.2016 cancelling the petitioner's licence.

3. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated

21.10.2016, it can be easily discerned that the licensing authority

passed the order cancelling licence after due consideration of the

petitioner's show cause reply. The order dated 21.10.2016 is

speaking and reasoned.

4. On perusal of the order passed by the appellate

authority also, it transpires that the appellate authority has

considered the petitioner's appeal and passed a reasoned order

rejecting the petitioner's appeal after noticing no infirmity in the Patna High Court CWJC No.10410 of 2020 dt.01-12-2021

order of the licensing authority. Likewise, the order of the

revisional authority is also speaking and reasoned.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has, however, submitted that the licensing authority as

well as the superior authorities dealing with the petitioner's appeal

and revision failed to take into account the petitioner's explanation

in its correct perspective. She contends that one of the allegations

against the petitioner was of maintaining two separate registers

fraudulently in respect of lifting and distribution of food grains.

She further contends that the petitioner had taken specific plea

before the licensing authority, the appellate authority and the

revisional authority that the petitioner was maintaining two

separate registers under the direction of the Block Development

Officer for facilitating inspection of the documents and running the

P.D.S. shop smoothily. She contends that this aspect has not been

duly examined by the authorities.

6. We have carefully perused the impugned orders. It

can be easily discerned from the order of the revisional authority

that the petitioner could not produce before the authorities any

document or evidence in support of his plea that he was

maintaining two separate registers under the guidance or direction

of the Block Development Officer. The petitioner was maintaining Patna High Court CWJC No.10410 of 2020 dt.01-12-2021

two registers under the direction of the Block Development Officer

or not, is a question of fact in dispute, which cannot be gone into

by this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. Considering the serious nature of irregularities said to

have been committed by the petitioner, the licence has been

cancelled.

7. We find no such legal infirmity in the impugned

orders as would require this Court's inference in Writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for

the petitioner has failed to point out any procedural irregularity in

the decision making process.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit

in this application, which is, accordingly, rejected.

                                         (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)


                                               (Madhuresh Prasad, J)
PNM
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date
Transmission Date       N.A.