Patna High Court
Akhalakh Ansari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23891 of 2018
======================================================
Akhalakh Ansari S/O Late Asagar Ansari R/O Village- Murlipur, P.S.
Sheosagar, District-Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Civil Supply, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate Cum Chairman, District Selection Committee,
Rohtas at Sasaram.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Licensing Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The Block Development Officer, Sheosagar, District- Rohtas.
5. The Circle Officer, Sheosagar, Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal- Sc4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-02-2021
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging
the order dated 09.07.2016, passed in Supply Case no. 8 of 2016
by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Rohtas
at Sasaram, whereby and whereunder the P.D.S. licence of the
shop of the petitioner has been cancelled as also for setting aside
the order dated 16.09.2016, passed in Appeal Case no. 17 of
2016 by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, whereby
and whereunder the aforesaid order dated 09.07.2016 has been
upheld and the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Shorn of the details, it would suffice to state that a
Patna High Court CWJC No.23891 of 2018 dt.17-02-2021
show cause notice dated 23.02.2016 was issued to the petitioner
calling upon him to submit his show cause reply within a period
of 02 days as to why appropriate action be not taken against him
on account of discrepancy found in the date of birth of his
father. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his reply,
however without properly considering the same, the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram had cancelled the
licence of the P.D.S. shop of the petitioner bearing Licence no. 1
of 2015 by an order dated 09.07.2016, whereafter the petitioner
had challenged the same by filing an appeal bearing Appeal
Case no. 17 of 2016, however the same has also been dismissed
the learned District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram by an order
dated 16.09.2016.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a
short submission to the effect that the impugned orders dated
09.07.2016 and 16.09.2016 are bad on account of the fact that
the show cause notice dated 23.02.2016, served upon the
petitioner, does not state about the proposed action of
cancellation of his licence in the event of his show cause reply
being found to be un-satisfactory, resulting in the petitioner
being denied reasonable opportunity to state his case against the
proposal of cancellation of his licence, which has further led to
Patna High Court CWJC No.23891 of 2018 dt.17-02-2021
violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment
reported in 2018 (4) PLJR 516 (Ram Bachan Ram vs The
State Of Bihar & Ors.), paragraph no. 6 whereof, is reproduced
hereinbelow :-
"6. Even though, the respondents have
filed a counter affidavit and have tried to
justify the action, we find that under sub-
clause (ii) of Order 27 of the Control
Order, 2016, it is clearly stipulated that no
order of cancellation of a licence shall be
made until the licensee has been given
sufficient opportunity to state his case
against the proposal of cancellation. The
words, 'proposal for cancellation'
appearing in the statutory provision clearly
contemplates that when the show cause
notice is issued, licensee should be
categorically informed that there is
'proposal for cancellation of licence' and
show cause notice issued as to why licence
should not be cancelled. In the show cause
notice issued to the petitioner, apart from
the fact that there is no such proposal
indicated asking him to show cause as to
why licence should not be cancelled, we
find that on the second ground also, the
impugned action is not sustainable
inasmuch as the petitioner gave a detailed
explanation and justification against the
proposed action, as is contained in
Annexure-6, and in a cryptic manner,
without considering the explanation and
defence of the petitioner, his licence has
been cancelled. This amounts to violation
Patna High Court CWJC No.23891 of 2018 dt.17-02-2021
of principles of natural justice inasmuch as
the non-application of mind and passing an
order adverse to or prejudice to a person
without considering his defence is also a
facet and the requirement of principles of
natural justice and this having not been
followed, we are of the considered view
that principle laid down in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation (supra) squarely
applies in this case. The order impugned
suffers from material legal infirmity and on
this court itself without relegating to the
petitioner to take recourse to the statutory
remedy available, the question could have
been considered by the learned Writ Court
as is apparent from the face of record that
there is statutory violation or violation of
the principles of natural justice."
4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that
the show cause reply, submitted by the petitioner has been
considered at length and only then the aforesaid impugned
orders have been passed. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for
the State has not disputed the position, as is existing in law.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the materials on record. At the outset, it would be
relevant to reproduce Clause 27 of the Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 hereinbelow :-
" 27. Cancellation of License. - (i) If a
licensee violates any provision of this
Order or fails to comply duties and
responsibilities assigned to the license, his
Patna High Court CWJC No.23891 of 2018 dt.17-02-2021
license shall be cancelled by the licensing
authority by a written order, and such a
cancellation of license shall not affect
other actions initiated/initiable under the
Essential Commodity Act, 1955 (Central
Act 10 of 1955).
(ii) No order of cancellation of a license
shall be made until the licensee has been
given sufficient opportunity to state his
case against the proposal of cancellation
of his license.
(iii) The cases of violation of the
provisions of this Order shall be disposed
of within two months, as far as possible,
after coming in cognizance as for."
6. It is clear from a bare perusal of the aforesaid
Clause 27 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016 that in case, the respondent-authorities
proposes to cancel the licence of the P.D.S. shop of a licence
holder, the licencee has to be given sufficient opportunity to
state his case against the proposal of cancellation of his licence,
however in the present case, the show cause notice dated
23.02.2016, nowhere mentions about the proposal of
cancellation of licence if the show cause reply of the petitioner
is found to be un-satisfactory, hence it is apparent that the
petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity to represent
his case against the proposed punishment of cancellation of
licence, which in turn has led to violation of the Principles of
Patna High Court CWJC No.23891 of 2018 dt.17-02-2021
Natural Justice, hence in the opinion of this Court, the impugned
order dated 09.07.2016, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-
cum-Licensing Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram in Supply Case no.
8 of 2016 is bad in law, hence is quashed. Consequently, the
appellate order dated order dated 16.09.2016, passed in Appeal
Case no. 17 of 2016 by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at
Sasaram has got no legs to stand, thus is also set aside.
7. The writ petition stands allowed, however with
liberty to the respondent-authorities to proceed afresh, in
accordance with law, if they so desire.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
rinkee/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.02.2021
Transmission Date NA
