Patna High Court
Krishnadev Prasad And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 7 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9503 of 2017
======================================================
1. Krishnadev Prasad Son of Laxman Prasad Resident of Village- Budhaul, P.S.
Wazirganj, District- Gaya.
2. Ramdeo Prasad Yadav son of Dashrath Yadav Resident of Village- Budhaul,
P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya.
3. Upendra Chouhan Son of late Budhan Chouhan Resident of Village-
Budhaul, P.S. Wazirganj, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. The Collector, Gaya.
4. The S.D.O. Sadar, Gaya.
5. Subodh Prasad @ Subodh Kumar Son of Sri Suresh Yadav Resident of
Village- Budhaul, P.S. - Wazirganj, District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar, GP.-4
: Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to GP-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2025
1. It is reported by the Learned counsel for
the petitioners that the client has taken away the file
and he has given no objection Vakalatnama to the
petitioners.
2. No one appears for the petitioners. Once
no objection is taken by the petitioners, it is for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9503 of 2017 dt.07-05-2025
2/9
petitioners either to engage another counsel or to
appear as party in person.
3. The matter pertains to the year 2017
where three of Writ petitioners preferred the Writ
petition against the respondents including the
private respondents no. 5 challenging the order
dated 25.05.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent
whereunder the Supply Revision No. 97 of 2017 was
allowed, in favour of the 5th respondent, observing
that the charges made against the petitioner have
not been substantiated by documentary or cogent
evidence and both the courts below passed orders
on the basis of conjecture and surmises.
4. On perusal of the Writ petition, it is
evident that the petitioners are the consumers and
attached with the shop of the respondent no. 5 who
carries out the business of public distribution shop
within the Panchayat Amethi, basing on the license
Patna High Court CWJC No.9503 of 2017 dt.07-05-2025
3/9
bearing No. 77/2007. On 15.02.2016, the 1 st
petitioner and other consumers made allegation
regarding irregular distribution of food-grains,
against 5th respondent vide Annexure-1. On
16.02.2016
vide letter no. 25, the Block Supply
Officer, Wazirganj, Gaya submitted an inquiry
reported to the SDO, Sadar Gaya, stating therein that
during the inspection 50 to 60 villagers were present
and inquiry officer recorded the statements of the
beneficiaries, but the dealer and their supporters
pelted bricks upon them. Having no other option
they fled away from the shop of the 5 th respondent.
Vide Memo No. 144/vk0 dated 17.02.2016, the Block
Supply Officer, Wazirganj was directed to make an
inquiry for the shop of the petitioner and as such on
16.02.2016 at about 11:00AM, the inspection was
conducted in the shop of the respondent no. 5 and
inquiry report was submitted. On 16.02.2016 one
Patna High Court CWJC No.9503 of 2017 dt.07-05-2025
Sanjay Yadav lodged a report at Wazirganj P.S. for
which Case No. 47/2016 registered under Section
147, 341, 323, 337/504 r/w 506 of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioners and others, alleging that
Krishnadev Yadav assaulted him with Pathar and the
brother of the informant Suresh Yadav was assaulted
by Sunil Yadav by means of Pathar on his head. For
the same set of occurrence, another FIR was also
lodged by Krishnadev Prasad Yadav and others
against the 5th respondent and their family members.
On 23.02.2016 vide office letter no. 162/ vk0 a show
cause was issued to Subodh Kumar for submitting his
reply against the allegations. Further the show cause
notice dated 23.02.2016 was served to the 5 th
respondent. On 25.02.2016 the 5th respondent gave
a reply denying the allegations. On 16.03.2016, the
Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya vide Memo No.
225 cancelled the license of 5th respondent on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9503 of 2017 dt.07-05-2025
ground that the show cause of 5th respondent is not
satisfactory. Against the order of cancellation dated
16.03.2016, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal
before the Collector, Gaya which was pending. On
08.04.2016, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya
vide Memo No. 988 directed the Block Supply Officer,
Wazirganj to take necessary steps for distributing the
remaining food-grains of 5th respondent amongst the
consumers and as per the orders of the Sub
Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya the stock of the 5 th
respondent was handed over to one Aditaya Kumar
for distribution.
5. As per the contents of the orders of the
Sub divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya dated
08.04.2016, the food-grains was supplied to thirty-
three card holders, basing on the statement recorded
by the Block Supply Officer. Further as per the order
dated 13.04.2016 vide Memo No. 319, the Sub
Patna High Court CWJC No.9503 of 2017 dt.07-05-2025
Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya, directed the Block
Supply Officer, Gaya to institute F.I.R. against the 5 th
respondent, as he was found indulged in black
marketing of food-grains. Accordingly, Wazirganj P.S.
Case No. 118 of 2016 was lodged against the 5 th
respondent, under Section 7 of E.C. Act. On
19.08.2016, the Collector, Gaya passed an order in
Supply Appeal No. 17/2016 by which the appeal
preferred by the 5th respondent was dismissed.
6. Being aggrieved by said order dated
19.08.2016, the 5th respondent preferred Supply
Revision No. 97/2017 before the Commissioner,
Magadh Division, Gaya. On 25.05.2017, the
Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya allowed the
revision of the 5th respondent holding that the
charges made against the 5 th respondent have not
been established by any documentary and cogent
evidence.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9503 of 2017 dt.07-05-2025
7. It is contended in the Writ petition that
the Learned Commissioner has wrongly made
observations that there was no documentary or
cogent evidence against the 5th respondent and have
wrongly passed the order on conjecture and
surmises. Further the Inquiry Officer submitted an
inquiry report vide Memo No. 25 dated 16.02.2016
in which he alleged that the dealer and their family
members pelted stones and misbehaved with the
consumers, for which a case was registered against
the 5th respondents vide Case No. 48 of 2016 on the
file of Wagirganj Police Station. The Writ petition is
filed challenging the revision order dated 25.05.2017
passed by the Divisional Commissioner in Supply
Revision No. 97 of 2017.
8. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by
the officials respondents contending that the Writ
petition is not maintainable either on facts or on law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9503 of 2017 dt.07-05-2025
It is the specifically contended in the counter
affidavit that the Commissioner has acted under his
lawful jurisdiction and passed appropriate order but
not on conjecture and surmises and the orders of the
revision clearly disclose that the orders of the
appellate authority dated 16.03.2016 passed by Sub
Divisional Officer, Sadar as well as the order dated
19.07.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya
were set aside and it is a well reasoned and a
speaking order was passed basing on the materials
available before the Divisional Commissioner,
Magadh Division and therefore, prayed to dismissed
the Writ petition.
9. Admittedly, this is not a Public Interest
Litigation. The petitioners have not stated about
their locus standi in challenging the orders of the
Divisional Commissioner in this case. Moreover, the
fundamental rights of the petitioner are nowhere
infringed and there was no explanation as to how the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9503 of 2017 dt.07-05-2025
principles of natural justice of the petitioners, being
the consumers of the PDS shop, are violated.
10. These all are questions of the facts,
which were adjudicated by the revenue authorities
and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner
clearly disclose that he has decided the matter
basing on the material available before him. Further
the Writ petition also disclose about the criminal
cases lodged against the 5th respondent, for which
the prosecution has to prove that the 5 th respondent
is guilty for those offences, which cannot be decided
under the Writ jurisdiction.
11. On perusal of the entire record, the Writ
petition itself disclose that it is not maintainable,
therefore, the Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
amitkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 15.05.2025
Transmission Date N/A
