Patna High Court
Ram Chandra Baitha vs The State Of Bihar on 2 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7779 of 2019
======================================================
Ram Chandra Baitha Son of Jagdev Baitha resident of Village- Suragahiya,
P.O. Haribela, Block- Bathnaha, P.S.- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer cum Licensing Authority, Sitamarhi Sadar,
District- Sitamarhi.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Block- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, AC to AAH 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 02-12-2022
Heard Mr. Anil Chandra, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha for the State.
The license of the petitioner was suspended for his
having become an accused in a criminal case involving breach
of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Later the license was
cancelled vide order dated 17.01.2019, which order is under
challenge in the present petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7779 of 2019 dt.02-12-2022
The order referred to above indicates that notice to
the petitioner was issued but it was refused to be accepted.
The counter affidavit discloses that the notice was refused to
be accepted and the bailiff was prevented from affixing the
notice on the outer wall of the house of the petitioner.
Precisely for this reason, without according any
reason in the order, the license of the petitioner has been
cancelled.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
submits that such assertion of the State is absolutely incorrect
factually. There is no evidence to support the resistance of the
petitioner in either accepting the notice or preventing the bailiff
from affixing it on the outer wall of the house. In such cases,
evidence is recorded by the bailiff in the shape of statement by
neighbours or others who may have accompanied him.
Be that as it may, we find from the order that no
reason has been assigned.
Without commenting adversely on the un-reasoned
order and keeping in mind that one more opportunity is
required to be given to the petitioner to explain his cause as
Patna High Court CWJC No.7779 of 2019 dt.02-12-2022
also taking into consideration the submission of the petitioner
that he shall furnish the reply to the show-cause notice within
the time-frame fixed by the licensing authority, we deem it
appropriate to set aside the order and remand the case to the
licensing authority to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner,
detailing the charges against him within a period of fifteen days
of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
After receiving the reply of the petitioner, for which
reasonable time shall be given to him, the licensing authority
shall advert to the same and pass a reasoned order within a
period of sixty days thereafter, giving reasons in support of the
decision so taken.
With the afore-noted direction/observation, the
petition stands disposed of.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.12.2022
Transmission Date NA
