Patna High Court
Baliram Paswan vs The State Of Bihar on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8571 of 2020
======================================================
Baliram Paswan (Male) aged about 54 years, Son of Munshi Paswan,
Resident of Village-Moratal, Village Panchayat-Moratal, Police Station-Bodh
Gaya, District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Food and
Consumers Protection, Government of BIhar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Alok Kumar, AC to AAG 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Binay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned AC to AAG 5, for the
State.
3. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following
relief:
"That this is an application for issuance
of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and
direction/directions to quash the order dated
19.10.2019 contained in memo No. 972 by which
the Ld. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya has
capaciously been cancelled the License No. 01/17
of the petitioner carrying on business under the
Public Distribution System as a P.D.S dealer and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8571 of 2020 dt.02-02-2021
for direction upon the respondent No. 3 to
continue allocation to the Public Distribution
System Shop of the petitioner after declaring the
cancelation order null and viod and/or pass such
other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the
case."
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the State submitted
that the petitioner, besides not invoking the statutory remedy of
appeal before the District Magistrate, Gaya, has filed the present
application after much delay. It was submitted that the order
impugned is dated 19.10.2019, whereas the petitioner has moved
the Court in October, 2020.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due
to pandemic, there was delay.
6. Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the
pandemic started after five months of passing of the impugned
order and even the statutory remedy of appeal before the Collector
is within 30 days, but still the petitioner has filed the writ petition
after one year of the order being passed. Thus, the Court finds that
the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches as has rightly
has been submitted by learned counsel for the State. The petitioner
was required to be vigilant and if he has chosen to be slack and
casual, the Court would not entertain such writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8571 of 2020 dt.02-02-2021
7. For reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
8. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to move
before the appropriate forum, if available, in accordance with law.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar/Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR
U
T
