Vindeshwar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1100 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1099 of 2023
     ======================================================

Vindeshwar Yadav Son of Jivachh Yadav, Resident of village - Pipra Tol, P.S. Jainagar, District - Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food Supply and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer Jainagar, Madhubani.

4. The District Supply Officer, Madhubani.

5. The Block Supply Officer Jainagar, Madhubani.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5 Mr. Aniwul Haque, AC to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-03-2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition,

assails the order dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure-5), passed vide

memo no. 280, by respondent no.3, the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Jainagar, Madhubani, whereby the licence of PDS dealership of

the petitioner was cancelled, as well as the order dated

05.07.2022 (Annexure-7), passed in Supply Appeal Case No.

165 of 2022, by respondent no.2, the District Magistrate,

Madhubani, whereby the appeal preferred against the order of Patna High Court CWJC No.1099 of 2023 dt.21-03-2023

licensing authority has been affirmed.

The licence of the PDS shop of the petitioner has been

cancelled on the basis of alleged complain of black marketing

for which it is stated that the FIR was registered against the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

FIR was registered on 22nd of July, 2020 by the In-charge Block

Supply Officer, Jainagar wherein he states that with the help of

local villagers, from a bullock cart, 18 bags of rice were seized

alleging the same to be of PDS shop, whereupon the concerned

officer went to the concerned PDS shop belonging to the

petitioner and verified the stock which was found to be in order.

Thereafter, he filed a complaint against the concerned bullock

cart driver as well as against unknown persons. It is further

submitted that the complaint has not been filed against the

petitioner, who was a PDS shop licence holder. The said aspect

has been completely ignored both by the licensing authority

while passing the impugned order as well as by the appellate

authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

there is no allegation of black marketing against the petitioner in

the FIR. Hence, both the orders passed by the licensing Patna High Court CWJC No.1099 of 2023 dt.21-03-2023

authority as well as the appellate authority are therefore only

perverse and show non-application of mind.

Learned counsel for the respondents invites attention

to the counter affidavit and supports the impugned order. He

further submits that the licence was cancelled by the licensing

authority after the FIR was registered wherein the petitioner has

also been named. Since the allegations are to be investigated by

the police and the same reflects black marketing, the

cancellation order cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal. The

appellate authority has also opined similarly.

This Court has considered the submissions of the

parties. From the bare perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the

concerned officer did not file any complaint against the

petitioner, although his name was entered by the police in the

FIR as an accused, but the contents of the FIR nowhere reflect

any black marketing on his behalf. The rice, which was seized

from the bullock cart, has not been found to be that of the PDS

shop of the petitioner as the stock of the PDS shop of the

petitioner was found to be in order.

The licensing authority as well as the appellate

authority have failed to take notice of content of the FIR and the

order passed is only superfluous and is clearly a case of non-

Patna High Court CWJC No.1099 of 2023 dt.21-03-2023

application of mind.

The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed

and is accordingly, allowed.

As such, the order dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure-5),

passed vide memo no. 280, by respondent no.3, the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Jainagar, Madhubani, as well as the order

dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure-7), passed in Supply Appeal Case

No. 165 of 2022, by respondent no.2, the District Magistrate,

Madhubani are hereby quashed and set aside with all

consequential benefits to the petitioner and the licence of PDS

shop is restored to the petitioner.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Amrendra/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.03.2023 Transmission Date