Patna High Court
Ramnaresh Tiwary vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 16 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20827 of 2018
======================================================
Ramnaresh Tiwary son of Late Hardev Tiwary, resident of Village- Repura
Rampur Vishwanath, Police Station- Saraiya, Block- Saraiya, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur West.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Saraiya, Muzaffarpur West.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad- Aag5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-08-2023
The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
"That the Petitioner in the instant writ
application prays for quashing of the Order
contained in Memo No. 2362 dated 21.09.2016
passed by the Respondent No. 4 issuing show
cause notice on non-est ground, for quashing the
Order contained in Memo No. 2872 dated
26.10.2016 cancelling the PDS License No.
28040024/08 and for quashing the Appellate order
dated 24.08.2018 passed in Supply Appeal Case
No 32/2016-17 on the ground that the Authorities
have proceeded on the vague allegations without
declaring the name of the consumers and without
disclosing the nature of complaint made by the
complainant with particulars. The order of
cancellation and appellate order both are liable to
Patna High Court CWJC No.20827 of 2018 dt.16-08-2023
be quashed as no statement of consumer was
made and nothing in the name of enquiry
report/complaint were handed over to the
Petitioner hence in violation of the orders of the
Hon'ble Court the cancellation order was passed
and affirmed by the Appellate Authority."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has stated that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 4
i.e. The Sub Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (West) vide Memo
No. 2872 dated 26.10.2016 for cancelling the PDS license of the
petitioner bearing License No. 28040024/08 and that of the
appellate authority vide order dated 24.08.2018 passed in Supply
Appeal Case No. 32/2016-17 is contrary to the provisions of the
Act illegal and bad in the eye of law.
3. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has been
running the PDS Shop since last more than 33 years without any
complaint from any quarters and even the inspection which was
done on 28.08.2016 showed that there were no irregularities in the
distribution of the commodities, that the stock register was
maintained properly and there were no complaints from any of the
consumers. Even though, the petitioner has submitted a detailed
reply to the show-cause notice, the same was not considered by the
authority concerned and without application of mind, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20827 of 2018 dt.16-08-2023
Respondent No. 4 has passed the order cancelling the PDS license
of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner was not
supplied with the inquiry report nor any consumer was examined
by the authority concerned before passing the impugned order of
cancellation. Even the appellate authority has passed the order in a
mechanical manner without adverting to the grounds raised by the
petitioner in the appeal.
5. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this
Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 253 of 2014 to buttress his
contention.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents has stated that the present writ petition is not
maintainable as the petitioner has an alternate and effective
remedy of filing a revision against the orders of the Appellate
Authority.
7. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner was
provided ample opportunity before passing the impugned order
and as the irregularities against the petitioner were found to be
grave, the authority had no other option but to cancel the PDS
license of the petitioner and, therefore, prayed this hon'ble Court to
dismiss the present writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20827 of 2018 dt.16-08-2023
8. A perusal of the show-cause notice as well as the
impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 4 shows that one of
the major allegations against the petitioner were that he has not
maintained the Notice Board properly. Other than the said
allegation, there are no other complaints against the petitioner
from the consumers/ beneficiaries. This Court in CWJC No. 253 of
2014 vide order dated 11.03.2015 under similar circumstances has
held as under:-
"In my opinion, irregularities in
maintenance of notice board or maintenance of
the stocks within the premises of the petitioner are
too trivial and cannot form a basis for
cancellation of licence. No doubt there were other
serious charges against the petitioner regarding
non-issuance of cash-memo to the consumers,
distribution of lesser amount of kerosene oil and
non-distribution of food-grains but surprisingly
even while making such allegations, the names of
such consumers who are dissatisfied by such
action of the petitioner are conspicuously missing.
The allegations are sweeping in nature without
reference to any specific consumer.
In my opinion the non-supply of the
enquiry report conducted by the District Level
Committee which is the foundation for issuance of
show cause notice placed at Annexure-1 as well as
non-supply of names of such of the consumers who
had complained against the petitioner as
regarding the irregularities in distribution of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20827 of 2018 dt.16-08-2023
food-grains or the kerosene oil has prejudiced the
petitioner to file his purposeful reply and in
absence thereof, the order impugned in my
opinion, are based on no materials.
Though it was strenuously argued by
Mr. Pandey that in absence of any response by the
petitioner the allegations would be deemed to
have been admitted but in my opinion even if the
show cause reply was missing, the orders passed
by the statutory authorities having civil
consequences and resulting in cancellation should
reflect application of mind. Unfortunately it is
grossly missing inasmuch as neither the order of
the Licensing Authority nor the order of the
appellate authority deal with the materials which
formed the basis to drive home the charges. The
orders impugned are indefensible and cannot be
upheld."
9. Having regard to above settled legal position, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned orders of both the Respondent
No. 4, Sub Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (West) and the
Appellate Authority are set aside and the authorities concerned are
directed to restore the supplies to the petitioner for distribution to
the consumers. In case the authorities want to take any action, they
shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner along with the copy of
the inquiry report and any other material on which they rely upon.
The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of submitting his
Patna High Court CWJC No.20827 of 2018 dt.16-08-2023
explanation and also an opportunity of hearing before passing any
order.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
gauravkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 21.08.2023
Transmission Date N/A
