Patna High Court
Shyam Sunder Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 25 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8484 of 2019
======================================================
Shyam Sunder Ray Son of Late Ram Babao Roy, resident of Village and Post
Office- Madhopur, Police Station- Patori, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Patori, Samastipur.
6. Additional District Supply Officer, Patori.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Sr Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal (SC 4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-02-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the Writ
application for the following reliefs:
"That the Petitioner in the instant
Writ application prays for quashing
of the Order dated 09.10.2018
passed in Revision case No.
05/2015 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner Darbhanga, by
which the Divisional Commissioner,
Darbhanga had affirmed the order
of the Collector without considering
the facts and circumstances and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8484 of 2019 dt.25-02-2025
2/8
the Petitioner further prays for
quashing the order dated
22.01.2015
passed in Appeal Case
No. 35/2013 by the Collector,
Samastipur and order under Memo
No. 2056 dated 24.09.2011 passed
by the Respondent No. 5, Sub
Divisional Officer, Patori whereby
and where under the license of the
Petitioner had been cancelled
without supplying the Enquiry
Report to the Petitioner and
without considering the submission
made by the Petitioner in his reply
and license of the Petitioner had
been cancelled on the vague
allegations and without considering
the show cause reply of the
Petitioner which is violation of
principles of natural justice and the
Petitioner further prays for
restoration of the Public
Distribution System License of the
Petitioner."
2. The brief facts culled out of the
petition are that the petitioner's PDS license (No.
01/06) was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8484 of 2019 dt.25-02-2025
Patori, without supplying the enquiry report or
considering the show-cause reply filed by the
petitioner. The cancellation was based on vague
allegations that are not sustainable in the eyes of
the law. Both the Appellate Authority and the
Revisional Authority upheld the cancellation order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patori,
without considering the pleas or submissions
raised by the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the Learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that following an enquiry
conducted by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms,
Patori, and the Assistant District Supply Officer,
Patori, on 28.07.2011, the petitioner was served
with a Show-Cause Notice bearing Memo No. 1694
dated 30.07.2011. The notice set out six charges
constituting irregularities under the order and
required a response from the petitioner, a copy of
which is placed at Annexure-1.
4. The Learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Anand Kumar Ojha appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner had moved this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.8484 of 2019 dt.25-02-2025
by filing CWJC No. 21400 of 2011 against the
cancellation order. On the prayer of the petitioner,
the said writ petition was disposed of by an order
dated 06.06.2013 (Annexure-6), granting liberty to
the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred
Appeal Case No. 35 of 2013 before the Appellate
Authority-cum-Collector, Samastipur, challenging
the cancellation order dated 24.09.2011. The
petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority,
without considering the facts, circumstances of the
case, and the submissions made by the petitioner,
rejected the appeal by an order dated 22.01.2015
(Annexure-7). It is further submitted that against
the order dated 22.01.2015, the petitioner filed a
revision bearing Revision Case No. 05 of 2015
before the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga.
However, the Revisional Authority rejected the
revision by an order dated 09.10.2018.
6. Heard the Learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel
for the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8484 of 2019 dt.25-02-2025
7. At this juncture, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of
this Court to the order passed in CWJC No. 253 of
2014 (Raghuvir Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar
& Ors.) (Annexure-9). The learned Senior Counsel
contends that this matter is squarely covered by
the judgment passed by this Court in Raghuvir
Prasad (supra). Therefore, it is prayed that this writ
petition may be disposed of on the same terms
and conditions.
8. The Learned Counsel for the
respondents, agreeing with the judgment passed
by this Court in Raghuvir Prasad (supra) and
submits that this matter may be disposed of on the
same terms and conditions as outlined in the
aforesaid judgment.
9. I have perused the order passed in
Raghuvir Prasad (supra). For better appreciation of
the facts, relevant portion thereof is quoted
hereinbelow:
"In my opinion the non-
supply of the enquiry report
conducted by the District Level
Patna High Court CWJC No.8484 of 2019 dt.25-02-2025
Committee which is the foundation for
issuance of show cause notice placed
at Annexure-1 as well as non-supply
of names of such of the consumers
who had complained against the
petitioner as regarding the
irregularities in distribution of the
food-grains or the kerosene oil has
prejudiced the petitioner to file his
purposeful reply and in absence
thereof, the order impugned in my
opinion, are based on no materials.
Though it was streneously
argued by Mr. Pandey that in absence
of any response by the petitioner the
allegations would be deemed to have
been admitted but in my opinion even
if the show cause reply was missing,
the orders passed by the statutory
authorities having civil consequences
and resulting in cancellation should
reflect application of mind.
Unfortunately it is grossly missing
inasmuch as neither the order of the
Licensing Authority nor the order of
the appellate authority deal with the
materials which formed the basis to
drive home the charges. The orders
impugned are indefensible and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8484 of 2019 dt.25-02-2025
cannot be upheld."
In result, the Writ petition
is allowed and the order passed by
the Licensing Authority as contained
in Annexure-3 along with the order of
the appellate authority placed at
Annexure-4 are set aside. The licence
of the petitioner stands restored.
This order would,
however, not preclude the
respondents to proceed in the matter
in accordance with law bearing in
mind the observations made
hereinabove."
10. In view of the fact that this matter
is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, the
Writ application is allowed, in light of the judgment
passed in Raghuvir Prasad (supra), and the
impugned orders dated 24.09.2011 (Annexure-4),
22.01.2015 (Annexure-7) and 09.10.2018
(Annexure-8) are, hereby, quashed.
11. This order, however, shall not
preclude the respondents to proceed in the matter
in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the
observations made hereinabove.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8484 of 2019 dt.25-02-2025
12. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.03.2025
Transmission Date
