Hareram Sahu vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 200 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9576 of 2022
     ======================================================

Hareram Sahu S/o Mahadev Sahu, Resident of Village-Masankhon, Bahrampur alias Masankhon, Ward No. 13, P.S. and Block-Kusheshwarsthan, District-Darbhanga, Pin Code-848213.

... ... 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, Biraul, Darbhanga.

5. The District Supply Officer, Darbhanga.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Kusheshwarsthan, Darbhanga.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal (Sc4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

Date : 17-01-2023

Heard Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, the learned

Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh,

the learned counsel for the State.

The license of the petitioner has been cancelled

and it aggrieves the petitioner for the reason that the opinion

of the Licensing Authority is based solely on the report given

by the Block Supply Officer who had conducted the inquiry

and had submitted his report, pursuant to which, the Patna High Court CWJC No.9576 of 2022 dt.17-01-2023

petitioner had been noticed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn

the attention of this Court to the fact that all the charges in

the notice were replied by him with necessary supporting

proof but from the manner in which the reply has been dealt

with, it is apparent that only the opinion of the Block Supply

Officer has been relied upon.

As an instance, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the fact

that the report is based on the statements collected from

many of the targeted beneficiaries, the names of whom have

not been disclosed either in the inquiry report or in the

opinion given by the Block Supply Officer. This makes the

conclusion arrived at by the Licensing Authority to be

absolutely coloured and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the inquiry report by the Block Supply Officer

and his later opinion, when asked for by the Licensing

Authority, has not been supplied to the petitioner.

Both these grounds do not weigh with us for Patna High Court CWJC No.9576 of 2022 dt.17-01-2023

exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India when the petitioner has not elected for

the statutory remedy of appeal which is available to him.

For the aforesaid reason, we dismiss this petition

but with an observation that in case an appeal is filed by the

petitioner within a period of 30 days, the Appellate Authority

shall take into account all the grounds raised by the

petitioner in this petition and pass a reasoned order within a

further period of 60 days.

The order so passed shall be made available to

the petitioner forthwith.

With the aforesaid observation / direction, the

writ petition is dismissed.

                                                                   (Ashutosh Kumar, J)



Harsh/Sunil-                                                       ( Satyavrat Verma, J)

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date       N/A