Rajeev Ranjan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4432 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10953 of 2021
     ======================================================

Rajeev Ranjan Kumar S/o Surendra Sharma Resident of Village- Gangapur, P.s.- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The Collector Jehanabad.

3. The Licensing Authority-cum Sub- Divisional Officer Jehanabad.

4. The Block Supply Officer Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

Date : 11-08-2022 Heard Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, learned advocate

for the petitioner and Mr. Anisul Haque representing the State.

The license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the

licensing authority who, according to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, had himself made an inspection of the shop of the

petitioner but had not afforded the copy of the inspection report to

him before passing the order.

The order impugned in the present petition has been

challenged on three counts viz. that in the absence of the inquiry

report having been furnished to the petitioner, there could not have Patna High Court CWJC No.10953 of 2021 dt.11-08-2022

been any effective representation on his behalf; the same authority

inspected the shop and decided that the petitioner's license

deserves to be cancelled and; lastly that the notice did not clearly

stipulate the consequences in case the explanation given by him

were not to be found satisfactory.

The last of the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner

is not tenable for the reason that any further action in that regard

which has been stipulated in the notice is clear enough to indicate

that if the explanation is not found to be satisfactory, the only

punitive action to which the petitioner could be subjected is

cancellation of his license and no other order.

However, with respect to the two other grounds raised

on behalf of the petitioner, we find substance in the same.

For the aforenoted reason, we are not taking exception

to the petitioner having approached this Court directly after the

order of cancellation was passed, without availing of the

alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against such order.

We set aside the order impugned; remit it to the

licensing authority to give a fresh notice to the petitioner along

with a copy of the inquiry report within a period of sixty days from

the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On eliciting

the response of the petitioner on such notice by giving him Patna High Court CWJC No.10953 of 2021 dt.11-08-2022

reasonably sufficient time, a final order shall be passed giving

reasons in support of the same within the next sixty days. which

order shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ

petition stands disposed of.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

( Jitendra Kumar, J) rishi/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          16.08.2022
Transmission Date