Samsul Haque vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 931 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10993 of 2019
     ======================================================

Samsul Haque Son of Gaffar Miyan, resident of Ward No. 13 Senuawariya Senuariya P.S. Kangli West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food and Civil Supply Government of Bihar New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate West Champaran Bettiah.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Narkityaganj West Champaran Bettiah.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Mishra,Adv For the State Respondent: Mr.Arvind Ujjwal, S.C.-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-02-2021 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner had challenged, the impugned order

dated 04.09.2018 whereby Public Distribution System Licence of

the petitioner bearing No.17 of 2016 was cancelled by the

competent authority in CWJC No. 19756 of 2018 on the ground

that the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner and as such suffers from violation of

natural justice.

3. The aforesaid ground was taken into notice by the

Writ Court in CWJC No.19756 of 2018 and the said writ

application was disposed off on 05.02.2019 with liberty to the

petitioner to withdraw the same and file statutory appeal. The

petitioner filed statutory appeal before the Collector, West Patna High Court CWJC No.10993 of 2019 dt.18-02-2021

Champaran and by order dated 16.03.2019 contained in Annexure-

5, the appeal was dismissed.

4. The petitioner has statutory remedy of revision

against the appellate court order as provided in Rule 32 Sub-Rule

6 of the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control Order) 2016.Though the

petitioner had availed the statutory remedy of appeal and did not

challenge the same before the revisional authority nor has

challenged the same before this Court rather the same order, which

was under challenge in the aforesaid writ application, has been

challenged by filing fresh writ application on the ground that when

initial order was bad, the same can be challenged in a successive

writ application.

5. Evidently, the present writ application is abuse of

the process of the Court, hence it is dismissed with cost of

Rs.10,000/- payable in the Victim Compensation Fund.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

Nitesh/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          20.02.2021
Transmission Date