Patna High Court
Vimal Kumar Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 25 June, 2024
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13726 of 2022
======================================================
Vimal Kumar Ray Son of Harihar ray Resident of Village- Harpur Bakhari
Mirzapur, Police Station Ahiyapur, District Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, East, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Mushahari Block, Muzaffarpur.
7. Nagendra Kumar, Son of not known the then Circle Office, Mushahari
Anchal, District- Muzaffarpur, presently posted as Circle Officer, Dulhin
Bazar Anchal, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent No.7: Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Adv.
For the State : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG5
: Mr. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-06-2024
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
"i. For quashing the order dated
20.05.2022
passed by the respondent no. 4 the
Collector cum District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur
passed in Appeal No. 30 of 2020-21 whereby
and where under appeal preferred by the
petitioner dated 10.06.2020 was rejected on
baseless ground, the respondent no.4 did not
consider the merit/ points of the petitioner and
keeping the matter pending about two years
whereas there was an order of Hon'ble High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4119 of 2021 directing
Patna High Court CWJC No.13726 of 2022 dt.25-06-2024
the respondent no.4 to dispose of the matter
within a period of three months.
ii) For quashing the order contained
in memo no. 1517 dated 21.05.2020 passed by
the respondent no.5, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, East, Muzaffarpur by which license of
PDS shop of the petitioner was cancelled.
iii) For initiation of a proceeding
against the respondent no.4 for non compliance
of order dated 21.12.2021 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 4119 of 2021 by which there was a
direction to the respondent no.4 to dispose of
the appeal of the petitioner within a period of
three months but the respondent no.4 did not
obey the order of this Hon'ble Court.
iv) For directing the respondent
authorities to restore the license of PDS of the
petitioner bearing License No. 23-01-07-05-
2016 with immediate effect.
v) For all consequential reliefs to
which the petitioner is found entitled in course
of hearing of this writ application."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has
been granted PDS License and he was operating the same without
any complaint from any person. That the inspection of the shop
was conducted by the Circle Officer, Mushahari on 02.04.2020 and
he has submitted a report dated 02.04.2020 to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, East, Muzaffarpur. The Sub-Divisional Officer East,
Muzaffarpur thereafter has issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner dated 10.04.2020. That after receipt of the show cause
notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 14.04.2020.
However, the SDO without appreciating the explanation submitted
by the petitioner has passed the order of cancellation on
21.05.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal
Patna High Court CWJC No.13726 of 2022 dt.25-06-2024
before the respondent No. 4 i.e., the Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Muzaffarpur and the respondent No. 4 in a mechanical
manner has dismissed the appeal without adverting to the grounds
raised by the petitioner and also the documents filed before him
vide order dated 20.05.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
stated that the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint before the
Lokayukt way back in the year 2019 against the Circle Officer
(Respondent No. 7 herein) and the same was taken cognizance by
the Lokayukt. That the respondent No. 7 with an ulterior motive
and having vengeance in heart has submitted a false report to the
SDO and the SDO without considering the explanation submitted
by the petitioner has passed the order of cancellation. That the
appellate authority has also not considered the grounds raised by
the petitioner nor the documents filed before him to show that
none of the beneficiaries attached to the shop of the petitioner have
any grievance against him and that the inspection report submitted
by the respondent No. 7 was false and biased report made against
the petitioner. Learned counsel has stated that the only allegation
against the petitioner was on the basis of a complaint alleged to
have been given by the four beneficiaries i.e., Mrs. Rinku Devi,
Rajo Devi, Tuntun Ram, Amina Khatoon who are alleged to have
stated that they did not receive the ration for the month of March
Patna High Court CWJC No.13726 of 2022 dt.25-06-2024
2020. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has stated in
his reply that Mrs. Rinku Devi was taking ration from another
shop and when she tried to take ration from the shop of the
petitioner, the E-POS machine was showing that the portability is
not available. That in so far as three other beneficiaries who have
alleged to have given a complaint are concerned, the counsel for
the petitioner has stated that they have themselves given signed
notarised affidavits stating that they have no complaint against the
petitioner and that they are getting the necessary ration as per
schedule. Learned counsel has stated that even though the
petitioner has filed the affidavits of the above three persons before
the Collector, the Collector has failed to take the same into
consideration and totally ignored the same. Further, it is stated that
once an allegation of bias is alleged against a particular officer, in
this particular case against the respondent No. 7 who has prepared
the enquiry report, the authority ought not to have taken the same
on face value and asked some other officer to submit a report but
the same was not followed, there by violating the principles of
natural justice and equity. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed
this Hon'ble Court to allow the present writ petition and set aside
the orders of both the Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13726 of 2022 dt.25-06-2024
Muzaffarpur dated 20.05.2022 and the Sub-Divisional Officer,
East, Muzafarpur dated 21.05.2020.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-
State has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the
present writ petition and stated that the orders passed by both the
authorities are well reasoned orders which do not call for any
interference by this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel has stated that
both the appellate as well as the primary authority duly taking into
consideration the evidence on record and also finding that the
petitioner has been violating the provisions of the Control Order,
2016 have passed well reasoned orders. Learned counsel has also
stated that the petitioner did not file any evidence before the
primary authority to substantiate his claim which are being
canvassed in the appeal. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this
Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 while
adopting the arguments made by the counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State has also stated that the complaint before
the Lokayukt pertains to some other issue and the petitioner is
trying to confuse this Court by clubbing the same with the present
case. Learned counsel has stated that based on the complaint made
by the beneficiaries on the date of the inspection, the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.13726 of 2022 dt.25-06-2024
No. 7 has submitted his report to the SDO giving the factual aspect
only. Learned counsel has further stated that the allegations made
against the respondent No. 7 by the petitioner are made only to
prejudice this Court and do not have any bearing on the present
case. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court to
dismiss the present writ petition.
6. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was
issued a show cause notice on 10.04.2020 alleging that four
persons have made complaints against him stating that they did not
receive the grains for the month of March 2020. Even though the
petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said show cause
notice, the authority concerned did not consider the same on the
ground that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support
of his claim.
7. A perusal of the explanation submitted by the
petitioner reveals that the said explanation was submitted during
the Covid-19 Pandemic i.e., when the entire nation was under
lockdown. The petitioner in his explanation has stated that due to
the lockdown, the petitioner was not in a position to submit the
requisite documents in support of his case and sought time for
submitting the same subsequently. However, the authority without
awaiting for the said documents has passed the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13726 of 2022 dt.25-06-2024
cancellation on 21.05.2020. Though the petitioner has preferred an
appeal before the appellate authority immediately, the appellate
authority has taken its own sweet time for passing the order
impugned. It is to be noted that the petitioner has filed the sworn
notarised affidavits of the three of the beneficiaries who are
alleged to have made complaints against the petitioner however,
the same were not considered by the appellate authority. But, on
the other hand, the appellate authority has stated that no new
evidence can be looked into by him. Further, the authority was of
the opinion that the allegations made against the respondent No. 7
do not have any bearing on the case on hand and the plea of the
petitioner that the report of the respondent No. 7 was biased was
rejected.
8. Having regard to the fact that the three of the
beneficiaries out of the four who are stated to have made
allegations against the petitioner have submitted their sworn
notarised affidavit stating that the petitioner was supplying the
ration well within time and they do not have any complaints
against him ought to have considered the said affidavits. That in so
far as the remaining beneficiary was concerned, the fact that the
said beneficiary has been taking ration from another shop has not
been denied. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner was not
Patna High Court CWJC No.13726 of 2022 dt.25-06-2024
supplying the grains to that particular beneficiary is also not
correct. Further it is to be noted that when serious allegations are
made against any officer, the higher officials should be cautious
while relying on any report filed by them and should avoid passing
orders solely based on the said reports. The authority in fairness
should have called for another report from some other officer
instead of relying on the report submitted by the respondent No. 7.
The fact that the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 7 had
some differences and complaints were made against the
respondent No. 7 before the Lokayukt has not been denied and the
same is substantiated by Annexure-1 which is a notice issued by
the Lokayukt taking cognizance of the complaint made by the
petitioner against the respondent No. 7. The non consideration of
the explanation and also the sworn notarised affidavit of the
beneficiaries by the appellate authority and relying on the enquiry
report submitted by the respondent No. 7 have to be deprecated
and the same are in violation of the principles of natural justice
and equity.
9. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the orders which
are impugned in the present writ petition i.e., the order of the
appellate authority dated 20.05.2022 and also the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13726 of 2022 dt.25-06-2024
cancellation passed by the SDO East, Muzafarpur dated
21.05.2020 have been passed without any application of mind nor
duly taking into consideration the explanation and the documents
submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, both the orders are hereby
set aside and the matter remanded back to the SDO East,
Muzafarpur for passing orders afresh. The SDO shall consider the
explanation and also the sworn affidavits filed by the petitioner
and pass a reasoned order. It is needless to mention that before
passing any order, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of
hearing.
10. Having regard to the fact that the license of the
petitioner has been cancelled from the month of May of 2020, the
SDO East, Muzafarpur shall complete the entire exercise as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With the above direction, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.06.2024.
Transmission Date NA
