Patna High Court
Kaushalya Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 18 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1964 of 2019
======================================================
Kaushalya Devi Wife of Ramji Yadav Resident of Village- Singhpur, P.O.
Sahdigi, Gram Panchayat Raj- Pagara, Block- Vijaipur, P.S. Vijaipur, Dist.
Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Collector-Cum District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
4. The Senior Deputy Collector, Gopalganj.
5. The District Supply Officer, Gopalganj.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hathua, Distt. Gopalganj.
7. The Block Supply officer, Vijaipur, Distt. Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (Sc 4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2021
The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Hathua, whereby and where-under the P.D.S.
license of the petitioner has been cancelled as also for
restoration of the P.D.S. license of the petitioner with immediate
effect.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the present case arises out of the same transaction
by which 18 P.D.S. licenses were cancelled by the S.D.O.,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2019 dt.18-02-2021
Hathua and in a similar case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
vide order dated 25.01.2019 passed in CWJC No. 1394 of 2019,
has been pleased to set aside the impugned order of that case,
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hathua. It would be
pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the aforesaid order
dated 25.01.2019 passed in CWJC No. 1394 of 2019 herein
below:-
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the
petitioners in the aforesaid two writ applications had
moved this Court in the year 2015 but their writ
applications remained pending till those were
disposed off on 18.08.2018. The petitioner has no
doubt moved this Court recently, but in the opinion
of this Court, the principles governing the writ
applications and rejection thereof on the ground of
delay and laches essentially lays down a test wherein
a question arises as to whether the delay are such
that it would make the petitioner disentitled for the
reliefs prayed for in the writ application.
In the opinion of this Court, in the nature of the
order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which is
totally without consideration and only five months
back other writ application came to be disposed off
vide Annexure 8 and 9 respectively the delay cannot
be taken as a legal and valid ground to deprive the
present petitioner from getting consideration of his
case in like manner as have been provided by this
Court to the other two writ applicants recently on
18.08.2018. This Court is, thus, inclined to reject
the ground of delay and laches.
On perusal of the impugned order, as contained in
Annexure-7, this Court is satisfied that even though
the Sub- Divisional Officer has taken note of the
contentions of the petitioner as disclosed in his
Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2019 dt.18-02-2021
reply to the show cause notice, he has not
considered those replies and as such this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
In result, the impugned order, as contained in
Annexure-7 is set aside. The matter is remitted to
the Sub- Divisional Officer, Hathua (respondent
no.6) for fresh consideration and to pass a speaking
order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. Let the whole exercise be completed
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
In case, the licensing authority is satisfied with the
reply of the petitioner, the consequential benefits
shall also be granted to the petitioner."
3. The learned counsel for the State, Shri Arvind
Ujjawal, SC-4, does not dispute the fact that a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, in a similar case, has set aside the order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hathua and the present
case is identical to the said case, hence he has got no objection
in case the present writ petition is disposed off in similar terms.
4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.08.2014
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hathua, whereby and
where-under the PDS licence bearing Licence No. 51 of 2007,
pertaining to the shop of the petitioner, has been cancelled, is set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Hathua for fresh consideration as also for passing a
speaking and a reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1964 of 2019 dt.18-02-2021
hearing to the petitioner herein.
5. It is needless to state that the entire exercise, as
aforesaid. should be completed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition stands allowed on the aforesaid
terms.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Tiwary/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 19.02.2021
Transmission Date 19.02.2021
