Patna High Court
Nand Ji Singh @ Nand Jee Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 13 February, 2025
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14329 of 2023
======================================================
Nand Ji Singh @ Nand Jee Singh Son of Late Banka Singh @ Banka Yadav,
Resident of Village- Nachap, Police Station- Murar, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Dumraun, P.S.- Dumraon, Dist- Buxar.
3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dumraun, P.S.- Dumraon, Dist- Buxar.
4. The Block Development Officer, Chaugai,P.S.- Murar, Dist- Buxar.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Chaugai, P.S.- Murar, Dist- Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (Sc4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-02-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
"That the present writ application has
been filed passed by Divisional Commissioner, Patna
in BTPDS Control Revision No. 367/2022 together
with order dated 16.09.2022 in Appeal No. 07/2014
passed by D.M. Buxar (Annexure-6) and also setting
aside the order dated 23.12.2019 vide letter no. 1270
passed by S.D.O. Dumraon (Supply) through which the
P.D.S. Shop license of the petitioner has been
cancelled."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the
inspection which had taken place on 24.10.2013, the petitioner was
issued show cause notice by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.14329 of 2023 dt.13-02-2025
2/7
on 28.10.2013 and the petitioner has given a suitable reply duly
adverting to the allegations made against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
petitioner had lifted the monthly stock of grain on 23.10.2013 and
while on his way to the PDS Shop, the axel of the tractor in the
grains were transported had broken down. That the grains lifted by
the petitioner could not be shifted to the PDS Shop in time.
Learned counsel has stated that the authority conducted the
inspection on the very next day i.e., 24.10.2013 and having found
that the grains were not found were under the impression that the
petitioner had diverted the stock of grains for black-marketing.
Learned counsel has stated that though the petitioner had given
suitable explanation giving the reasons for the delay in showing
the stock at the PDS Shop, the authority has not considered the
same and in a pedantic and mechanical manner cancelled the PDS
license of the petitioner. Further, learned counsel has stated that
the authority has not enclosed the enquiry report relied by them,
along with the show cause notice. Learned counsel has further
stated that though the petitioner has preferred an appeal and
statutory revision against the orders of cancellation, the appellate
as well as the revisional authority without considering the grounds
raised by the petitioner have dismissed the appeal and revision
Patna High Court CWJC No.14329 of 2023 dt.13-02-2025
3/7
respectively in a mechanical manner confirming the order of
cancellation passed by the SDO concerned. Learned counsel has
stated that non-consideration of the explanation given by the
petitioner to the SDO is contrary to the well established principles
of law and the judgments of this Hon'ble Court as well as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel has stated that unless
and until the reasons are given by the authority concerned, either
accepting or rejecting the explanation given neither the petitioner
nor the higher authorities will be in a position to appreciate the
case of the petitioner nor the reasons for passing of the order.
Further, learned counsel has stated that non-supply of the enquiry
report along with the show cause notice is also fatal to the
proceedings and relied on the judgments of this Hon'ble Court
passed in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated 11.03.2015 to buttress his
case. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court to
allow the present writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by
the revisional authority, appellate authority as well as primary
authority.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present
writ petition and stated that the petitioner failed to show the stock
which was admittedly lifted by him on 23.10.2013. Learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.14329 of 2023 dt.13-02-2025
4/7
counsel has stated that during the inspection, the authority had
found that there is a shortage of 59.40 quintals of rice and 39.60
quintals of wheat which clearly establishes that the petitioner had
diverted the grains meant for public distribution. Learned counsel
has stated that all the authorities have consistently found that the
petitioner was guilty of violation of the provisions of the Control
Order and passed the impugned orders. That the orders passed do
not require any re-appreciation by this Hon'ble Court. Learned
counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the
present writ petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the
revisional authority, appellate authority as well as the SDO reveals
that the SDO while passing the order has not at all adverted to the
explanation submitted by the petitioner. The authority has merely
passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without giving
any reasons whatsoever for cancelling the license issued in favour
of the petitioner. Irrespective of the fact whether the tractor had
broken down as claimed by the petitioner or whether the petitioner
had indulged in black-marketing of the grains that were lifted by
him, the fact remains that the authority while passing the order of
cancellation did not give any reason for not accepting the
explanation filed by the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14329 of 2023 dt.13-02-2025
5/7
6. This Hon'ble Court as well as the Apex Court, on
number of occasions, have held that any authority/Court/quasi
judicial authority have to necessarily give reasoning in the order
passed by them. Unless reasons are given in the order, neither the
party nor the superior forum or Courts before whom the order is
challenged will be in a position to appreciate as to what has
weighed with the said authority either for dismissing or allowing
the application of the petitioner. Though the quasi judicial or
administrative authority are not obligated to give a lengthy or
elaborate reasoning as in the case of Judicial order, yet they are
expected to give a reasoned order which should be precise,
concisely setting out the reasons for allowing or dismissing the
contention/application as the case may be.
7. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and
Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC, 785, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:
".......... while exercising the power of
judicial review on administrative action and more
particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before
the higher court, providing of reasons can never be
dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem
has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against
whom an order is required to be passed or whose
rights are likely to be affected adversely must be
Patna High Court CWJC No.14329 of 2023 dt.13-02-2025
6/7
granted an opportunity of being heard Secondly, the
authority concerned should provide a fair and
transparent procedure and lastly, the authority
concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the
matter by a reasoned or speaking order.....
....... A litigant who approaches the court
with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled
to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer
Reasons are the soul of orders Non-recording of
reasons could lead to dual infirmities; Firstly, it may
cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly,
more particularly, hamper the proper administration
of justice. These principles are not only applicable to
administrative or executive actions, but they apply
with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of
precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of
the court must reflect what weighed with the court in
granting or declining the relief claimed by the
applicant."
8. Further, it is to be noted that this Hon'ble Court in
CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated 11.03.2015 held that non-supply of
the enquiry report along with the show cause notice to the
petitioner would defeat the rights of the petitioner as the petitioner
would not be in a position to give an effective explanation to the
authority. In the absence of the enquiry report therefore, on this
ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Having regard to the above and duly taking into
consideration the totality of the circumstances and facts of this
particular case, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned
Patna High Court CWJC No.14329 of 2023 dt.13-02-2025
7/7
orders passed by the revisional authority, appellate authority as
well as the primary authority dated 25.04.2023, 16.09.2022 &
23.12.2019
respectively and accordingly, they are all set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the SDO concerned for issuing afresh
show cause notice to the petitioner duly enclosing the copy of the
enquiry report and any other documents that they want to rely on
and giving him reasonable time to file his explanation. After
receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the authorities shall
pass a reasoned order duly taking into account the explanation
submitted by the petitioner. It is needless to mention that before
passing any orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of
hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be
communicated to the petitioner.
10. With the above direction, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.02.2025.
Transmission Date NA
