Patna High Court
Gulab Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7458 of 2020
======================================================
Gulab Singh Son of Satya Narayan Singh, Resident of Chanda Bhojpur, P.S.
Bihia Chandakewatia Bhojpur Ara.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate Bhojpur.
3. Sub Divisional Officer Jagdishpur Ara Bhojpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjawal, SC-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-01-2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. By way of the instant writ petition preferred under
Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing the order contained in memo no. 849 dated
21.04.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 by which the P.D.S.
licence no. 68 of 2016 of the petitioner has been cancelled.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a PDS license dealer
and was discharging his duties to the full satisfaction of his
beneficiaries. However, vide impugned order contained in
memo no. 849 dated 21.04.2020, the respondent no. 3 cancelled
Patna High Court CWJC No.7458 of 2020 dt.21-01-2021
his license without issuing any notice to the petitioner in this
regard. He contended that under Rule 27 of the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016
(for brevity 'PDS Control (Order), 2016'), it is provided that
cancellation of a license cannot be made until the licensee has
been given sufficient opportunity to state his case against the
proposal of cancellation of his license.
4. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the State
submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable. He contended that under PDS Control (Order),
2016, there is statutory provision for appeal. Since the petitioner
has not availed of the statutory remedy of appeal, the writ
petition is fit to be dismissed. He further contended that the
order impugned would indicate that in course of inspection of
the PDS shop of the petitioner made on 21.04.2020, several
irregularities were found, pursuant to which, the order impugned
was passed by the respondent no. 3.
5. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the order impugned passed by the
respondent no. 3, is in complete violation of the principle of
natural justice. Since the order impugned suffers from material
legal infirmity, the petitioner should not be relegated to take
Patna High Court CWJC No.7458 of 2020 dt.21-01-2021
recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal provided under PDS
Control (Order), 2016. He contended that under the similar
circumstance, when writ petition was dismissed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court directing the petitioner to take
recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal under the PDS
Control (Order), 2016, the Division Bench vide order dated
10.07.2018 passed in L.P.A. No. 499 of 2018 (Ram Bachan
Ram Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) quashed the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal.
6. Having heard the parties and perused the materials
on record, this Court is satisfied that the order impugned has
been passed by the respondent no. 3 in violation of the
principles of natural justice and completely ignoring Rule 27 of
the PDS Control (Order), 2016 which reads as under:
"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 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).
Patna High Court CWJC No.7458 of 2020 dt.21-01-2021
(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.
7. Since, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to
state his case against the proposal of the cancellation of licence,
the decision made in the proceeding stands vitiated.
8. As the order impugned has been passed to the
prejudice of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of
hearing, which amounts to without considering his defence, the
petitioner cannot be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal.
9. Accordingly, order impugned dated 21.04.2020
passed by the respondent no. 3 (Sub Divisional Officer
Jagdishpur, Ara Bhojpur) is, set aside.
10. Respondent no. 3 is directed to issue show cause
notice to the petitioner annexing a copy of the inquiry report
against the proposal of cancellation of license within 15 days
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. He
shall also be required to dispose of the proceeding against the
petitioner within two months in terms of Clause (iii) of Rule 27
Patna High Court CWJC No.7458 of 2020 dt.21-01-2021
of the PDS Control (Order), 2016.
11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
writ petition is disposed of.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25-01-2021
Transmission Date NA
