Khushi Lal Prasad vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 61 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8349 of 2020
     ======================================================

Khushi Lal Prasad Son of Nakchhed Sah Resident of Village- Athmohan, P.S.- Jharaukhar, District- East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran.

3. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Sikrahna, Dhaka, District- East Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Kumar Labh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondent-State.

The petitioner's Public Distribution System license

has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 16.04.2020. The

petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the said

order.

The short submissions advanced by the petitioner's

counsel is that no show cause notice was served on the petitioner

prior to passing of the impugned order. The order visiting the

petitioner with civil consequences is without any basis as neither

any show cause has been issued nor he has been allowed

opportunity to say anything or be heard in the matter before

passing of the impugned order by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna High Court CWJC No.8349 of 2020 dt.07-01-2021

Sikrahna. The Court had, earlier, granted time to the State for

filing counter affidavit. The counter affidavit has been filed.

The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the

petitioner has adequate alternative remedy and without exhausting

the same, he has rushed to this Court. He further submits that

Annexure- C dated 16.04.2020, is the show cause which was sent

to the petitioner. The extract of the Peon Book has also been

enclosed as Annexure- D to the counter affidavit and it is

submitted that the Peon had reported that after seeing the show

cause notice, the petitioner refused to accept the same and,

therefore, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner has

not availed of the opportunity granted to him under Annexure- C

dated 16.04.2020 and, therefore, a grievance cannot be raised that

the order is without any show cause or opportunity to the

petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that bare perusal of the

show cause notice dated 16.04.2020 would show that it allowed

the petitioner opportunity to place his response before the Sub

Divisional Officer on the very same day by 4 PM in the afternoon.

He further denies and disputes the report submitted by the Peon

(Annexure -D to the counter affidavit). It is his specific assertion

that the show cause notice was never served to him.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8349 of 2020 dt.07-01-2021

On consideration of the rival submissions, this Court

would observe that whether the Peon made efforts to serve notice

on the petitioner or not and whether he refused to accept the same

is a disputed question of fact This Court would not embark on

determination of this disputed issue.

Having said so, this Court would further observe that

from Annexure- C brought on record by the State itself it is

apparent that the show cause notice was issued on 16.04.2020,

asking the petitioner to submit his show cause in respect of some

allegation ranging from January, 2020 till April 2020. The

petitioner was also required to place the Registers and documents

in connection with the business of Public Distribution System

being carried on by him. All these things were required to be done

under the notice by 4 PM on the same very day. Even if the notice

had been served on the petitioner then, by no stretch of

imagination, it can be considered to be an opportunity offered to

the petitioner. Such notice would not sub serve the principle of

natural justice.

In this connection, this Court would also consider the

provisions of Rule 27 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution

System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Patna High Court CWJC No.8349 of 2020 dt.07-01-2021

'Control Order'). Rule 27 deals with Cancellation of License. Rule

27(ii) clearly stipulates as follows:-

"27(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."

Even the Rule, under which, the Authority can cancel

the license contemplates grant of sufficient opportunity of stating

the case. The facts taking note of above, cannot be considered to

conclude that sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the

petitioner in terms of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order.

The facts are clear from the pleadings that a show

cause notice, even if served, was only allowing the petitioner, at

best, half a days time to submit his response to the same. To add

to the injuries, this Court would also take notice of the fact that on

the very same day i.e., 16.04.2020 the order cancelling the

petitioner's license has also been issued by the Sub Divisional

Officer. The facts are such that there is irresistible conclusion that

the Authorities has acted in haste. No sufficient opportunity has

been granted to the petitioner and the manner, in which, the order

has been passed gives rise to a reasonable likelihood of

predisposition in the mind of the Sub Divisional Officer, who has

passed the order dated 16.04.2020.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8349 of 2020 dt.07-01-2021

In view of these facts, this Court would hold that the

order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 16.04.2020 cancelling

the license of the petitioner is clearly unsustainable as being

violative of the principle of natural justice. The order is not in

accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Statute. In view of

these two findings, this Court is inclined to quash the order dated

16.04.2020 cancelling the petitioner's Public Distribution System

license.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner is willing to submit his response to the show cause

notice dated 16.04.2020 within a period of one (01) week. If the

same is done, the respondent No 3 (The Sub- Divisional Officer,

Sikrahna, Dhaka, Dist. East Champaran) shall proceed to consider

the same and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the application stands

allowed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/-

AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE              N/A
Uploading Date        12.01.2021
Transmission Date