Amrendra Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2174 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2669 of 2022
     ======================================================

Amrendra Kumar Yadav, aged about 62 years, male, S/o Late Shiv Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Satauor, Tola Baruahi, P.S. - Nauhatta, District - Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The Collector, Saharsa.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa.

4. The Block Supply Officer, Nauhatta, District - Saharsa.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) Date : 20-04-2022

Heard Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, the

learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anisul

Haque, the learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order Patna High Court CWJC No.2669 of 2022 dt.20-04-2022

dated 18.06.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Sadar, Saharsa/the Licensing Authority,

whereby his license has been cancelled as also the

order passed by the Appellate Authority, viz., the

Collector, Saharsa, dated 31.12.2021, whereby the

order passed by the Licensing Authority has been

sustained.

3. It appears from the records that 48

bags of wheat were found loaded on a vehicle in front

of the P.D.S. shop of one Narain Yadav.

Consequently, Nauhatta (Darhaar O.P.) P.S. Case No.

47 of 2019 was registered for investigation under

Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

against the owner and the driver of the vehicle in

question.

4. On receipt of such report, the

Collector, Saharsa directed for an enquiry regarding

the source from where the 48 bags of rice were

purchased and further directed that all the P.D.S.

shops falling in the vicinity of the place of seizure be Patna High Court CWJC No.2669 of 2022 dt.20-04-2022

also inspected.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of

the Collector, Saharsa, the P.D.S. shop of the

petitioner was attempted to be inspected but since it

was found closed, the premises were sealed.

6. Be it noted that the petitioner had not

been made an accused in the aforesaid case till the

date of sealing of the premises.

7. Later, the premises were de-sealed and

on inspection of the stock, it was found that it was

absolutely updated and there was no shortage in the

stock.

8. The report indicating such stock

position has been brought on record.

9. After about two years, the

Superintendent of Police, Saharsa intimated the

Licensing Authority that during the investigation of

the aforesaid F.I.R., viz., Nauhatta (Darhaar O.P.)

P.S. Case No. 47 of 2019, the Supervising Police

Officer had recorded the statement of the driver of Patna High Court CWJC No.2669 of 2022 dt.20-04-2022

the vehicle in question, who suspected the hands of

the petitioner in transporting the rice for selling it in

the black-market. Merely on the basis of the

statement of the driver of the vehicle before the Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, who was supervising the

case, the Superintendent of Police suggested to the

Licensing Authority to cancel the license of the

petitioner.

10. It appears that thereafter the

petitioner was noticed and his explanation having

been found to be unsatisfactory, the license of the

petitioner was cancelled and such order of cancellation

was sustained by the Appellate Authority, viz., the

Collector, Saharsa.

11. Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, the

learned Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the

aforesaid two orders on several counts. In case of

the petitioner having been made accused in any

criminal case involving breach of any one of the

provisions of the E.C. Act, he could have been Patna High Court CWJC No.2669 of 2022 dt.20-04-2022

proceeded against only under Clause 28 of the Bihar

Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,

2016, which mandates that his license would be

suspended with immediate effect and after serving

show-cause notice to him in accordance with the Code

of Civil Procedure and giving him sufficient

opportunity to present his case, any lawful action

would be taken within 180 days, as far as possible.

That not having been done, the petitioner contends

that it was a knee-jerk reaction of the Licensing

Authority, who merely accepted the suggestion of the

Superintendent of Police, who had gone beyond his

jurisdiction to suggest for cancellation of the license

of the petitioner.

12. The further ground of assail is that

even when the petitioner responded to the aforesaid

notice and stated that he has falsely been implicated

by the driver of the vehicle in question and that his

implication and suggestion for cancellation of his

license came only after two years of the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.2669 of 2022 dt.20-04-2022

running his P.D.S. shop uninterruptedly, such

explanation was never adverted to by either the

Licensing Authority or the Appellate Authority.

13. Lastly, it has been submitted that the

proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated

under Clause 28 of the Bihar Targeted Public

Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 as the

license of the petitioner was never suspended in the

meanwhile. Only for a short-while, when the

petitioner was not found to be present in his shop, the

premises were sealed which was later de-sealed. At

the time of de-sealing of the premises, no shortage in

the stock was found. Notwithstanding the aforesaid

facts being brought to the notice of the Licensing

Authority as also the Appellate Authority, the order of

cancellation of license has been passed.

14. Thus, it has been urged that there

has been no application of mind by the Licensing as

well as the Appellate Authority.

15. It has further been submitted that Patna High Court CWJC No.2669 of 2022 dt.20-04-2022

merely because the Supervising Police Officer has

found some reason for suspecting the involvement of

the petitioner, that itself could not have been a

ground for proceeding against the petitioner and

cancelling his license.

16. The report of the Sub-Divisional

Police Officer/Supervising Authority may or may not

be accepted in the ultimate analysis which would

seriously depend upon the progress in the

investigation of the case. Nonetheless, assuming but

not admitting the fact that the petitioner was made an

accused after such disclosure made by the driver of

the vehicle suspecting his hands, the procedure

delineated under Clause 28 of the Bihar Targeted

Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

should have been derogated from.

17. The learned counsel for the State

however submits that, no doubt, the license of the

petitioner has not been suspended before its

cancellation by the Licensing Authority but that does Patna High Court CWJC No.2669 of 2022 dt.20-04-2022

not ipso facto mean that the petitioner was not

proceeded against under the provisions of the Bihar

Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,

2016 as on receipt of such intimation from the

Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was noticed

and only on his explanation having been found to be

unsatisfactory, the order of cancellation has been

passed.

18. We but find force in the submission of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders

passed by both the authorities, referred to above, do

not display proper application of mind for the reason

that the opinion of the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer/Supervising Authority appears to have

weighed heavily but wrongly with the Licensing as

well as the Appellate Authority. When the petitioner

was actually made an accused because of such

disclosure of the driver and what is the current status

of the case, has not been adverted to by either of the

authorities.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2669 of 2022 dt.20-04-2022

19. That the concerned authorities have

not taken into account the stock position of the P.D.S.

shop of the petitioner is a further reflection of the fact

that the order has been passed merely on the asking

of the Superintendent of Police, who had no

jurisdiction to suggest for cancellation of the license

of the petitioner.

20. For the reasons afore-stated, we have

not been persuaded to sustain the orders passed by

the Licensing Authority as also the Appellate Authority

and, thus, we are constrained to and set-aside both

the orders.

21. The matter is remitted to the

Licensing Authority to give a fresh notice to the

petitioner including all the materials which have been

collected against him during the course of

investigation of the case and the final outcome of the

case, if it has reached its finality and only on the

explanation offered by the petitioner for which he

shall be given ample opportunity, a reasoned order Patna High Court CWJC No.2669 of 2022 dt.20-04-2022

shall be passed.

22. While passing any order, it is

needless to state that the Licensing Authority shall

look into all aspects of the matter including that the

P.D.S. shop of the petitioner was sealed for a while

but at the time of de-sealing the same, the stock

position was found to be intact and any other ground

which the petitioner shall offer in support of his bona

fides.

23. The entire exercise shall be completed

within a period of 60 days from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order before

Licensing Authority.

24. The petition stands disposed off

accordingly.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Praveen-II/-

AFR/NAFR                   AFR
CAV DATE                   N/A
Uploading Date             22.04.2022
Transmission Date          N/A