Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.933 of 2022 ====================================================== Ranjit Kumar Son of Mathura Paswan Resident of Village- Balua, Belhari, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Consumer and Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya.

4.

The Block Supply Officer, Belaganj, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) Date : 24-02-2022 Heard Mr. Vijay Anand, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC 4 for the State.

The licence of the petitioner has been cancelled vide order dated 02.09.2021.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that after the first inspection was carried out of his PDS shop, he was asked

Patna High Court CWJC No.933 of 2022 dt.24-02-2022 2/3 to furnish reply to the show-cause notice to him which he replied.

However, thereafter, inspection was made twice in the shop of the petitioner but with respect to such inspection report, no notice was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was also not made available the copies of the inquiry reports.

The impugned order appears to have been passed on the basis of the report furnished by the inquiry team on all the three occasions and the reply furnished by the petitioner only after the first show-cause notice was given to him shortly after the first inspection report. The contention of the petitioner has some force that the petitioner was not aware of the charges against him in the other inquiry reports and therefore, he was not in a position to effectively represent his cause. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the licencing authority for giving fresh opportunity to the petitioner after affording to him all

Patna High Court CWJC No.933 of 2022 dt.24-02-2022 3/3 the inquiry reports and asking for a fresh reply on such reports. The licencing authority shall pass an order within a period of 60 days of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The order passed by the authority shall be a reasoned order and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

The writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) ( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) krishna/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 02.03.2022 Transmission Date NA