Patna High Court
Ram Krishna Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 2 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7911 of 2019
======================================================
Ram Krishna Singh, male, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Bindeshwar
Singh, resident of Village- Sauriya, P.S.- Manpur Sauriya Buzurg, District-
Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Supply, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
4. The S.D.O., Pupri, Sitamarhi.
5. The Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, Pupri, Sitamarhi
6. The Block Development Officer, Bokhra, Pupri, District - Sitamarhi.
7. The Block Supply Officer, Bhokhra, Pupri, District - Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Md. Najmul Hodda, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 02-01-2023
Heard Md. Najmul Hodda, the learned
Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anisul Haque, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7911 of 2019 dt.02-01-2023
learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner got a new house and shop
constructed. During the period when the construction
was under-way, a complaint was lodged by one of the
beneficiaries that during such period, the disbursement
of the food-grains to the targeted beneficiaries were
highly irregular. Except for this solitary complainant,
nobody else from amongst the attached targeted
beneficiaries had made any complaint.
3. The matter was inquired into and a report
came forthcoming that the new construction was made
by the petitioner but because of excessive rains during
the period, the register of receipts and disbursal for
one year got misplaced.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner
submits that these two facts, even if found to be
correct, cannot lead to any inference that the
disbursement during that period was irregular; which
allegation required specific charge against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7911 of 2019 dt.02-01-2023
petitioner. It appears that only on these two grounds,
which formed part of the report after an enquiry and on
an opinion of the Block Development Officer, the
licence of the petitioner wqas cancelled.
5. We find that there is no specific
accusation with respect to irregular disbursal during the
period when the new construction of house and shop
was underway.
6. The order appears to have been passed
on inferences without any basis.
7. For an order to be sustained on that
ground, a specific charge is required to be made with
respect to irregular disbursement and a reply is
required to be sought from the licensee. That not
having been done, we do not find any good reason to
sustain the order.
8. For the reason afore-noted, the order
cancelling the licence of the petitioner by the licensing
authority is set-aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7911 of 2019 dt.02-01-2023
9. The matter is remitted to the licensing
authority for it to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner
with specific/distinct charge of irregular disbursal of the
food-grains to the beneficiaries during the period when
the construction was underway and on receiving the
reply of the petitioner, for which he shall be given a
reasonable time, a final order shall be passed within a
period of 60 days of the receipt of such reply.
10. The order so passed by the licensing
authority shall be made available to the petitioner
forthwith.
11. With the aforesaid observation/direction,
the writ petition stands allowed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 09/01/2023
Transmission Date N/A
