Patna High Court
Ramashish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 22 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21200 of 2021
==============================================
Ramashish Kumar S/o- Dinanath Kumar Resident of Village- Sanokhra,
Akbarpur, P.S.- Akbarpur, District- Nawada, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principle Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate Nawada.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer Rajauli, Nawada.
4. The Block Supply Officer Akbarpur, Nawada.
... ... Respondents
==============================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv.
Ms.Preety Kunwar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. 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 : 22-02-2022
1. Heard Mr. N.K. Agarwal, the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Anisul Haque, the
learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated
26.11.2021 passed by the Licensing Authority, namely, the
Sub Divisional Officer, Rajauli, Nawada whereby the license
of the petitioner has been cancelled.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21200 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022
3. The slender ground taken by Mr. Agarwal is that
the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is based only
on the opinion of the Block Supply Officer.
4. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner
that while cancelling the license of a P.D.S. dealer, the
Licensing Authority has to satisfy himself that any condition
of the license or any provision of the Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 has been
violated.
5. From the perusal of the order impugned, it
appears that the same is primarily based on the opinion of
the Block Supply Officer before whom the matter was sent
for giving his opinion.
6. There is no difficulty in making a discrete
enquiry before coming to any final conclusion. But basing the
decision solely on the opinion of the Block Supply Officer is
not warranted under the Control Order of 2016. The
satisfaction has to be of the Licensing Authority and not of
the other functionary under the scheme.
7. While granting license, the application of an
Patna High Court CWJC No.21200 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022
aspirant is sent by the Licensing Authority to the Block
Supply Officer / Supply Inspector for scrutiny and enquiry,
whereafter their report along with the recommendation of
the Licensing Authority is submitted to the District Level
Selection Committee for consideration. This is not the
requirement under the Control Order, 2016 for taking a
decision with respect to cancellation of the license for breach
of any of the conditions of the license.
8. We, therefore, are of the view that the order is
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
9. The order impugned is, therefore, set aside. The
matter is remitted to the Licensing Authority / respondent
no. 3 for writing out a fresh order in accordance with law
after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to
explain his cause.
10. Needless to state that other stakeholders shall
also be heard before a final order is passed.
11. It is expected that the final order shall be passed
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt /
production of a copy of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21200 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022
11. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
sunilkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 24.02.2022
Transmission Date N/A
