Archana Kumari vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1312 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21246 of 2021
     ======================================================

Archana Kumari W/o Sri Ranjit Kumar Mishra, Resident of Ward No. 13, Basuara, Banswara, Araila, Block - Hanuman Nagar, Police Station- Moro, District - Darbhanga, Pin Code - 847106.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. Additional Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Collector, Darbhanga.

4. The Licensing Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga.

5. The District Supply Officer, Darbhanga.

6. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Darbhanga.

7. The Block Supply Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Hanuman Nagar, Darbhanga.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anisur Haque ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

Date : 22-02-2022 Heard Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, learned

Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anisur Haque for the

State.

The petitioner, a PDS licensee, has challenged the

orders passed by the licensing authority cancelling her Patna High Court CWJC No.21246 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022

licence and the order passed in appeal sustaining the order

of cancellation of the licence.

A slender ground has been taken by the petitioner

to challenge the aforesaid orders, viz, that the licensing

authority did not appreciate that the petitioner was absent

from her shop only for a day, for which a reasonable

explanation was given by her along with the supporting

document like the prescription of the doctor. That was not

accepted by the licensing authority and the licence of the

petitioner was cancelled. However, the appellate authority

has upheld the aforesaid decision of the licensing authority

on other grounds as also for the reason that the petitioner

had not taken leave from the licensing authority to be absent

for a particular day.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is

not the requirement under the Control Order of 2016. Rule

15 of the Control Order of 2016 reads as hereunder:

"15. Working Period and Leave. - (i) A shop of public distribution system shall be kept open every day in a week from Patna High Court CWJC No.21246 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022

7.00 am to 1.00 pm from March to August and from 8.00 am to 2.00 pm from September to February.

(ii) If a fair price shop owner is unable to operate the shop due to unavoidable reasons for a limited period, he shall submit an application to the licensing authority. The licensing authority may give him permission to go in leave after making optional arrangement for supply of essential commodities to the consumers related to his shop. The maximum period of leave shall be of 90 days at a time."

A permission is required to be taken by a shop

owner only in condition of his inability to operate the shop

for a long time due to unavoidable reasons and the leave

would be of maximum 90 days at one time.

There is no implicit condition in the Control Order of

1916 of seeking leave even for a day for remaining absent

from the shop.

In that event, both the authorities, namely, the

licensing as well as the appellate authority were under an

obligation to look at the correctness of the explanation

offered by the petitioner that she was absent from her shop Patna High Court CWJC No.21246 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022

on the day of raid because of certain unforeseen and

uncontrollable circumstance.

For this reason alone, the order passed by the

licensing authority as also the appellate authority are set

aside.

The licensing authority, namely, respondent no.4,

shall after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain

her cause afresh will take a final decision in the matter

preferably within a period of sixty days to be counted from

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

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.)

Sanjay/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24.02.2022
Transmission Date