Urmila Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 6304 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6007 of 2020
     ======================================================

Urmila Devi W/o Dilip Kumar Das, Resident of Village Sohta, P.S. Chhatapur, Prakhand Chhatapur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Dept. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.

3. The Collector, Supaul

4. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Tribeniganj, Distt. Supaul.

5. The Block Supply Officer, Chhatapur, P.S. Chhatapur, District- Supaul.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Das, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (S.C.4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 21-12-2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

"That the present writ petition is for quashing the P.D.S. License Cancellation order Memo No. 43 dated 07.03.2017 passed in Supply Case No. 01/2017 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Tribeniganj, contained in Annexure-9, the appellate order dt. 13.01.2019 passed by the Collector, Supaul in Supply Appeal No. 03/2017 contained in Annexure-10 and the Revisional Order dated 14.12.2019 passed in Supply Revision Case No. 11/2019 by the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa contained in Annexure-11."

Patna High Court CWJC No.6007 of 2020 dt.21-12-2021

Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that petitioner is

a dealer of PDS shop in village Panchayat Sohta, Block

Chhatapur, District- Supaul, against whom a complaint was

made before the Sub-Divisional Public Grievances Redressal

Forum, Tribeniganj and inquiry was entrusted to Block Supply

Officer, Chhatapur who conducted a enquiry against the

allegations made against petitioner and same was submitted to

the S.D.O., Tribeniganj and a show cause was issued to

petitioner and S.D.O., further directed petitioner to produce the

store register/distribution register/unit register and cash memo

to Block Supply Officer and petitioner submitted her show

cause to the S.D.O. but did not produce the required documents

as directed by the S.D.O. to the Block Supply Officer.

A second show cause was also issued to the petitioner

and petitioner submitted her reply, which was not found

satisfactory and S.D.O., Tribeniganj cancelled the licence of

PDS shop of petitioner by order dated 07.03.2017.

Two enquiries were conducted against petitioner. First

enquiry was conducted by Executive Magistrate, Tribeniganj

and B.D.O., Chhatapur, who submitted a detailed enquiry report

after making on the spot enquiry and recorded the statement of

beneficiary by name, who alleged several irregularities Patna High Court CWJC No.6007 of 2020 dt.21-12-2021

committed by petitioner in distribution of food grains and K. oil

and thereafter a second enquiry was conducted by Block Supply

Officer, who in writing informed the S.D.O. that petitioner did

not cooperated in the enquiry and did not submit the required

documents in order to verify the truthfulness of allegations

made by the beneficiary against the petitioner. Two enquiries

were conducted by two different authorities against which show

cause alongwith enquiry report was given to petitioner and after

hearing petitioner the licensing authority S.D.O., Tribeniganj

found the allegations to be correct and it was for the petitioner

to controvert or refute the allegations made by the beneficiaries

by producing relevant document before the enquiry officer or

the S.D.O. but he deliberately did not produce any documents

to falsify the allegations made by beneficiaries and thereafter

the licence granted to petitioner was cancelled and appeal and

revision preferred against said order were also dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and

considering the materials available on record, this Court finds

that in spite of being granted several opportunities by the

authorities to refute the allegations made by the beneficiaries,

which were found to be true in both enquiries report, as a result

of which license of petitioner was cancelled cannot be faulted.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6007 of 2020 dt.21-12-2021

This Court does not find any error or procedure

irregularities or violation of principles of natural justice by the

statutory authorities while passing the impugned orders,

accordingly, present writ petition stands dismissed.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

(S. Kumar, J) Sanjay/ranjan-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date