Ram Ekwal Ram @ Ramekwal Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.368 of 2019 ====================================================== Ram Ekwal Ram @ Ramekwal Ram Son of Late Rambrikchh Ram, Resident of Village and P.O.- Mahuwava, P.S.- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Collector, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. 3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Kumar Labh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.U.P. Singh -Sc4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 04-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cancellation PDS license of the petitioner and appellate order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order was passed without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would submit that petitioner has alternative statutory remedy in the nature of revision.

5. Alternative remedy is ordinarily a bar but there are three exceptions carried out by the Apex Court in the case Md. Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86).

The exceptions are (i) violation of fundamental right, (ii) lack of jurisdiction and (iii) violation of principle of natural

Patna High Court CWJC No.368 of 2019(2) dt.04-12-2019 2/2 justice.

6. Grievance of the petitioner in the present proceeding is that he was condemned unheard.

7. From the material available on record, it is apparent that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided and adverse orders was passed by the respondents. Compliance of Principle of Natural justice does not mean empty formality.

8. In view of the above, instead of relegating the petitioner to the alternative forum, the Court is inclined to allow the writ petition particularly in view of the opinion expressed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2407 of 2019 vide order dated 26.4.2019.

9. Accordingly, the order contained in Annexures-1 and 4 are quashed.

10. The writ petition is allowed. However, allowing the writ petition will not disentitle the respondents from passing fresh order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) U Ravi/-