Shiv Kumar Paswan vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1079 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6018 of 2019
     ======================================================

Shiv Kumar Paswan Son of late Tirth Paswan Resident of Village- Vijaura, P.S.- Bhagwanganj, P.O.- Mokar, District- Patna,Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, Bihar.

3. The Collector, Patna.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Masaurhi, District- Patna, Bihar.

5. The Block Extension Officer, Dhanarua, District- Patna, Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Adv.

For the State : Mr. U.P. Singh, AC to SC 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 20-03-2023

1. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, assails

the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner, the order

dated 07.05.2014 passed by the Collector in appeal and the original

order of cancellation dated 02.04.2012 passed by the S.D.O.,

whereby the license for running PDS shop was cancelled and upheld

by the appellate authority and the revisional authority.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner should

have been given a proper opportunity to defend himself and a copy of

the inquiry/inspection report should have been made available to the

petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6018 of 2019 dt.20-03-2023

3. This Court finds that the inspection was conducted

in the presence of the petitioner and he has not raised this contention

about non-supply of inspection report before any of the aforesaid

authorities. In the facts of the case, therefore, it cannot be said that

the petitioner has been prejudiced on account of non-supply of copy

of the inspection report. Keeping in view the law as laid down in

Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar

& Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727, the petitioner cannot be said

to have been prejudiced for non-supply. A new plea which has not

been taken before the appellate authority or before the revisional

authority cannot be taken up in writ petition and the argument,

therefore, deserves to be rejected. The license was cancelled way

back in 2012 and more than ten years have passed by.

4. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the

petitioner shall be free to apply afresh, if he so chooses.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Sachin/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date