Patna High Court
Md. Muzaffar Alam @ Muzaffar vs The State Of Bihar on 17 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 10315 of 2020
======================================================
Md Muzaffar Alam @ Muzaffar Son of Hamid Resident of Village- Dubaili,
Block- Dagarua, P.O.- Tauli Kola, P.S.- Dagarua, Sub-Division- Baisi,
District- Purnia.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Purnea.
4. The District Supply Officer, Baisha, Purnea.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baisi, Purnea.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Dagarua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr N K Agrawal, Sr Advocate with
Mr Rakesh Bihari Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr S Raza Ahmad, AAG V
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH)
Date : 17-11-2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 Petitioner was a licensee under Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (for brevity, BTPDS) Control Order, 2016 for
running a fair price shop. Alleging violation of the terms of
licence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
23.04.2020 by the Licensing Authority asking him to explain as to
why his licence be not cancelled. The petitioner was given time
Patna High Court CWJC No.10315 of 2020 dt.17-11-2021
till 26.04.2020 to submit his show cause reply. On 26.04.2020, the
Licensing Authority passed an order cancelling the licence
recording petitioner's failure to submit his explanation in response
to the show cause notice. The said order passed by the Licensing
Authority dated 26.04.2020 (Annexure 2) is under challenge in the
present writ application. It is the petitioner's case that the show
cause notice was received by him on 24.04.2020. Before the
petitioner could submit his explanation, the impugned order came
to be passed on 26.04.2020, in utter haste.
3 Mr N K Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has submitted that, three days' time granted
by the Licensing Authority, cannot be treated to be 'adequate
opportunity' given to the petitioner to deal with the allegations
made in the show cause notice. He has further submitted that the
very fact that only three days, after the issuance of notice, the
impugned order, cancelling the petitioner's licence, was passed by
the Licensing Authority, demonstrates that the Licensing Authority
did not even wait for the petitioner's reply and was pre-determined
to cancel the licence.
4 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State of Bihar wherein, the facts, regarding the date of issuance of
notice, the time which was allowed to the petitioner to submit his
Patna High Court CWJC No.10315 of 2020 dt.17-11-2021
reply and passing of the order on 26.04.2020, have not been
disputed. Learned AC to AAG V, however, has submitted that this
writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative
remedy of appeal.
5 In response to the said submission made on behalf of
the State of Bihar, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner
that as the impugned order is patently illegal in clear violation of
principles of natural justice and in breach of mandatory
requirement under Clause 27 (ii) of BTPDS Control Order,
existence of alternative remedy may not bar exercise of writ
jurisdiction by this Court.
6 Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 27 of BTPDS Control Order
mandates 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 of his licence.
7 In our considered view, Mr Agrawal is correct in his
submission that three days' time, allowed to the petitioner to state
his case against proposed cancellation of licence, cannot be said to
be sufficient opportunity within the meaning of Sub-clause (ii) of
Clause 27 of BTPDS Control Order.
8 The impugned order has apparently been passed
without waiting for the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10315 of 2020 dt.17-11-2021
after completion of three days of the issuance of notice. Further,
the impugned order was passed apparently in utter haste. In such
circumstance, the preliminary objection, taken on behalf of the
State of Bihar, is overruled. The impugned order dated
26.04.2020, passed by the Licensing Authority cancelling the
petitioner's licence, is hereby set aside.
9 The Licensing Authority, however, shall be at liberty
to pass an order afresh after considering the petitioner's
representation, filed subsequent to passing of the impugned order.
It shall be obligatory for the Licensing Authority to pass an order
afresh within two months from today failing which the petitioner's
licence shall be deemed to be restored. For the interregnum
period, the licence shall remain under suspension.
10 This writ petition stands allowed with aforesaid
observation and direction.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
( Madhuresh Prasad, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.11.2021
Transmission Date NA
