Patna High Court
Antesar Ahmad @ Intsar Ahmad vs The State Of Bihar on 17 February, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.285 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8599 of 2020
======================================================
Antesar Ahmad @ Intsar Ahmad, S/o Late Sarfaraz Ahmad, R/o Mohalla-
Shumati Sherghati, P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sherghati, District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Manini Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 17-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Appellant has assailed the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 03.03.2021 passed in CWJC No. 8599 of
2020. The learned Single Judge dismissed CWJC on the ground
of delay insofar as assailing the order dated 24.01.2017 read
with 16.04.2017 insofar as cancellation of Public Distribution
System License (hereinafter for short "PDS") and its affirmation
by the Appellate Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.285 of 2021 dt.17-02-2025
2/7
inadvertently, date of Appellate Authority has been taken into
consideration as 16.04.2017 instead of 16.04.2019. In this
regard, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out from the
very Appellate Authority order dated 16.04.2019 that there is a
reference to disposal of CWJC No. 11451 of 2017 and it was
disposed of on 14.12.2017. Therefore, the impugned order in
CWJC No. 8599/2020 viz., 16.04.2017 is incorrect. On this
ground itself one can draw an inference that Appellate Authority
order is not dated 16.04.2017, it should be subsequent to the
14.12.2017
. Writers of the author of the document may be
wrong in respect of writing 2017 and it may be 2019. This has
not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State. In
support of the same he has furnished supplementary counter
affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 and the same
has been taken note of to the extent that the Appellate Authority
order dated 16.04.2017 is incorrect and it is 16.04.2019.
4. It is a case of remand to the learned Single Judge,
however, having regard to the fact that CWJC is of the year
2020 and we are in the year 2025, it is not appropriate to
remand the matter to the learned Single Judge. Further, if the
appellant has not exhausted the remedy of revision before the
Revisional Authority against the Appellate Authority order dated
Patna High Court L.P.A No.285 of 2021 dt.17-02-2025
16.04.2019. At this distance of time, it is not appropriate to
relegate the appellant before the Revisional Authority for the
reasons that order of cancellation of PDS license dated
24.01.2017 reads as under:-
"dk;kZy; vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] "ksj?kkVh ¼x;k½A
¼vkiwfrZ "kk[kk½
&%vkns"k%&
fnukad 07-12-2018 dks lEiw.kZ x;k ftyk esa tu
forj.k iz.kkyh foØsrkvksa ds nqdku ds [kk|kUu ds
[email protected] dk vkSpd fujh{k.k ds i"pkr~ ftyk
inkf/kdkjh] x;k ds i=kad 1333@vk0 fnukad 22-12-2016 ls
izkIr izfrosnu esa Jh bUrs"kkj vgen] tu forj.k iz.kkyh ds
foØsrk okMZ ua0& 06 uxj iapk;r "ksj?kkVh ftyk&x;k
vuqKfIr la[;k&497@2007 ds }kjk fuEukafdr vfu;ferrk
cjrh x;h gSA
1- foØsrk }kjk HkaMkj.k LFky ij 30-30 Doha0 xsgwa ,oa
45-45 Doha0 ds LFkku ij 08 Doha0 xsgwa ,oa 18 Doha0 pkoy
ik;k tkukA
cjrh xbZ vfu;ferrkvksa ds laca/k esa foØsrk ls
Li'Vhdj.k dh ekax dh xbZA foØsrk }kjk lefiZr Li'Vhdj.k
esa ykHkqdksa dk C;ku i= ds ek/;e ls fn;k gS ftlesa C;ku
ncko esa Mkydj ;k cgyk Qqlykdj fy;k x;k ,slk izfrr
gksrk gSA tkap izfrosnu ,oa miHkksDrkvksa ds c;ku ls foØsrk
ds fo:} izfrdwy n`f'Vxkspj gksrk gSA
vr% vapy vf/kdkjh] "ksj?kkVh dk izfrosnu ,oa
miHkksDrkvksa ds C;ku ds vk/kkj ij foØsrk Jh bUrs"kkj vgen]
tu forj.k iz.kkyh ds foØsrk okMZ ua0&06 uxj iapk;r] "ksj?
kkVh ftyk&x;k vuqKfIr la[;k&497@2007 }kjk lefiZr
Li'Vhdj.k dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS ,oa fcgkj yf{;r tu
forj.k iz.kkyh] 2016 ds fofHkUu izko/kkuksa ,oa vuqKfIr dh
"krksZa ds mYya?ku esa foØsrk dh tu forj.k iz.kkyh dh nwdku
Patna High Court L.P.A No.285 of 2021 dt.17-02-2025
dh vuqKfIr la[;k&497@2007 dks rRdky izHkko ls jí fd;k
tkrk gSA
vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh]
"ksj?kkVh ¼x;k½"
The reading of the aforementioned order is bereft of
reasons. Cancellation of PDS License, Authority is exercising
power under Rule 27 of Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order,
2016 and it is a quasi judicial function. In order to submit
effective Appeal, Revision, appellant is entitled to have the
benefit of reasoned and speaking order insofar as cancellation
of license under Rule 27 of Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control)
Order, 2016 read with its affirmation in Appeal. In the light of
Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kranti
Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan &
Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, Para 47 reads as under:-
"47. Summarising the above
discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has
always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions affect
anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must
record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons
is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that
justice must not only be done it must also appear to
be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates
as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary
exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial or even
administrative power.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.285 of 2021 dt.17-02-2025
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion
has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as
indispensable a component of a decision-making
process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of
judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all
countries committed to rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of
judicial decision-making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial
opinions these days can be as different as the judges
and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions
serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate
by reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for
sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery
system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial accountability and
transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough about his/her
decision-making process then it is impossible to
know whether the person deciding is faithful to the
doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions
must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of
reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be
equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on
abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-
making not only makes the judges and decision-
makers less prone to errors but also makes them
subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard
Patna High Court L.P.A No.285 of 2021 dt.17-02-2025
Law Review 731-37].)
(n) Since the requirement to record
reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness
in decision-making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR,
at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford
[2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of
Human Rights which requires, "adequate and
intelligent reasons must be given for judicial
decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents
for the future. Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of
the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".
5. In the light of the aforementioned principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court insofar as exercising
quasi judicial functions by the quasi judicial Authority. It is not
appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge or
to any other authority.
6. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the writ
petitions dated 24.01.2017 and 16.04.2019 and order of learned
Single Judge dated 03.03.2021 passed in CWJC No. 8599 of
2020 are set aside. The cancellation of Licensing Authority
under Rule 27 of Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016 is
hereby directed to issue a fresh notice to the appellant and
appellant is hereby directed to furnish his explanation/reply to
the show cause notice to be issued, thereafter, proceed to pass a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.285 of 2021 dt.17-02-2025
detailed speaking order while taking note of the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. The
aforementioned exercise shall be undertaken within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of appellant's explanation.
7. Accordingly, LPA No. 285 of 2021, stands
allowed.
8. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
khushbu/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 25.02.2025
Transmission Date N/A
