Sarswati Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1052 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12749 of 2022
     ======================================================

Sarswati Devi W/o Sri Ram Narayan Yadav, Resident of Ward No. 02, Village- Kharaj, Post Chhachha Kheraj Dhuria, P.S. Keoti, Via Keoti Ranway, District- Darbhanga, Pin Code- 847337.

... ... 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 Block Supply Officer, Keoti, Darbhanga.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned order is in violation of the Section 27(ii) of the Bihar

Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as 'the order, 2016), as the copy of the

enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner and

therefore sufficient opportunity has not been provided. Patna High Court CWJC No.12749 of 2022 dt.17-03-2023

This Court has considered the submission of the

petitioner. Keeping in view the provisions of Rule 32 of the

Order, 2016, an appeal lies against the order passed under Rule

27 of the Rules, 2016. Further, in terms of Rule 32(vi) of Order,

2016, revision also lies against the order passed by the appellate

authority to the Divisional Commissioner. Thereafter, in terms

of Rule 32(vii) of the Order, 2016 a further appeal would also

lie to the Principal Secretary.

Keeping in view the remedy of appeal available

against the impugned order to the petitioner, this Court is of a

firm view that the present writ petition would not be

maintainable at this stage. All the grounds raised in the present

writ petition would be taken in appeal before the appropriate

authority.

Granting such liberty to the petitioner, the present writ

petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

After dictation of the aforesaid part of the judgment,

learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly objected to the

disposal of the writ petition with aforesaid liberty stating that a

judicial discipline has to be maintained by this Court and a

judgment passed by the Division Bench should be respected and

followed by this Court. He has relied on the judgment dated 11 th Patna High Court CWJC No.12749 of 2022 dt.17-03-2023

of August, 2022, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in

C.W.J.C. No. 10953 of 2021 (Rajeev Ranjan Kumar Vs. the

State of Bihar & Ors.). While deciding the writ petition, the

court noticed that the petitioner raised total three grounds

therein and also the observations of the Division Bench that if

the copy of the enquiry report has not been furnished to the

petitioner, "for the said reason, the Division Bench has not taken

any exception to the petitioner having approached this Court

directly after the order of cancellation passed without availing

of the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against such

order".

I have considered the aforesaid judgment. The

aforesaid judgment is found to be an exception to the original

rule in the facts of that case and the same cannot be said to be a

binding precedent. In terms of the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Official Liquidator Vs.

Dayanand & Ors., reported in 2008 (10) SCC 1, this Court is

bound to follow the law laid down by Division Bench alone.

This Court also finds that in the present case, an FIR

was registered against the petitioner, who is a P.D.S. dealer

under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities. Act, 1955, as

mentioned in paragraph no. 5 of the petition. Rule 28 of the Patna High Court CWJC No.12749 of 2022 dt.17-03-2023

Order, 2016 talks about action to be taken.

In such circumstances, the petitioner has the remedy,

as mentioned above, to raise all the grounds before the appellate

authorities.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with

aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Amrendra/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 20.03.2023 Transmission Date