Patna High Court
Ranjit Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 4 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8314 of 2020
======================================================
Ranjit Singh, aged about 67 years, Son of Bhudev Singh, Resident of Village-
Chakhfaij, P.s.- Mahanar, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Vaishali
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahanar, District- Vaishali.
3. The Block Supply Officer, Sahdeye Bujurg.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Aggrawal, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyan Shankar, A.C. to G.P.-2.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-02-2021
Heard Mr. N. K. Aggrawal, learned senior Counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned A.C. to G.P.-2
appearing for the State.
The present writ application has been filed for quashing
the order dated 21.04.2020 contained Memo No.272 passed by
Sub Divisional Officer, Mahanar, District-Vaishali, respondent
No.2, by which the PDS license of the petitioner has been
suspended invoking Clause 28 of the Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to
as the PDS Control Order).
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch
Patna High Court CWJC No.8314 of 2020 dt.04-02-2021
as suspension of the PDS license of the petitioner has been passed
in violation of Clause 28 of that Act. Learned senior counsel
referring to Clause 28 submits that the licence can only be
suspended, if the petitioner is sent to jail or he has been declared as
fugitive. Learned counsel next submits that an FIR was lodged by
the Block Supply Officer bearing FIR No.84 of 2020 in connection
with Deshri (Sahdei) O.P. P.S. Case No.84 of 2020 in which the
petitioner was granted bail on the date of surrender vide order
dated 10.07.2020 and he was never sent to the jail and not declared
fugitive. Learned counsel next submits that since the date of the
impugned order, more than 180 days has lapsed and as per Clause
28 of PDS Control Order, the validity of suspension order is 180
days. Learned senior counsel in support of his submission relies
upon two orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in
C.W.J.C. No.16733 of 2016 and C.W.J.C. No.7162 of 2017.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
State referring to the counter affidavit submits that after the
suspension of license of the petitioner, a show cause notice has
been issued for cancellation of the license of the petitioner on the
ground that he has violated the Government orders/ directions
issued in wake of Covid-19 pandemic period. Learned counsel,
however, submits that further development pursuant to the show
Patna High Court CWJC No.8314 of 2020 dt.04-02-2021
cause notice is not available with him and the authority may be
given liberty to go ahead with the process of cancellation in
accordance with law.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration Clause 28 of the PDS Control Order and the fact
that the petitioner was not arrested at any point of time and has
also not been declared fugitive and further taking into
consideration the orders passed, mentioned hereinabove, by the
coordinate Benches of this Court, I come to the conclusion that
impugned order dated 21.04.2020, contained Memo No.272
passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Mahanar, District-Vaishali, is
not sustainable in the eye of law and is hereby quashed.
It is made clear that the process of cancellation, if at all
has been initiated and is still pending, the same may proceed in
accordance with law.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
sanjeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10/02/2021
Transmission Date NA
