Sri Umesh Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13626 of 2017 =========================================================== Sri Umesh Manjhi son of Muneshwar Manjhi, resident of Village- Bodhgaya Tola Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Bodhgaya, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya.

4. The Block Development Officer, Bodhgaya, Gaya.

5. The Block Supply Officer, Bodhgaya, Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bibhuti Narayan, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.RAZA AHMAD-AAG5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in memo no. 1202 dated 07.01.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya by which licence of the petitioner's Fair Price shop bearing no. 02/07 has been cancelled and monthly allotment has been stopped; and further to restore the petitioner's licence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission to assail the impugned order on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner and he was

never confronted with the same with an opportunity of being heard or adducing evidence in that regard. A specific stand has been taken in para 11(iv) of the writ petition that the impugned order of cancellation of licence has been passed without providing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, though the same had been relied upon in the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. The stand of the petitioner with regard to non-supply of enquiry report has not been controverted, as no counter affidavit has been filed till date.

5. In the above view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner has resulted in violation of natural justice and thus the decision making process stands vitiated. The impugned order dated 07.01.2017 (Annexure-3) is hereby quashed and the matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya for taking decision afresh in the matter after supplying a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Supplies to the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the respondent no. 3.

6. It is made clear that in case the stand of the petitioner denying receipt of the enquiry report prior to order of cancellation being passed is found to be incorrect, the respondents shall be at

liberty to approach this Court for recall of this judgment.

7. The writ petition stands allowed as above. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 11.04.2018 Transmission Date NA