Jayram Paswan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1936 of 2019 ====================================================== Jayram Paswan (Male) aged about 79 years Son of late Ramlal Paswan Resident of Village- Lakhanpur, Village Panchayat, Lakhanpur, P.S. Mufassil, Distt. Gaya.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Food and Consumers Protection, govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. Bihar

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya

4. The Block Supply officer, Manpur Distt. Gaya. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binay Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (SC4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

In the nature of the order supposed to be passed, learned counsel for the parties submits that no counter affidavit may be required at this stage. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Memo No. 812 dated 20.06.2018 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya (Annexure-2) by which the the license of the petitioner for PDS Shop has been cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards the show cause notice dated 22.05.2018 as

Patna High Court CWJC No.1936 of 2019(2) dt.22-02-2019 2/3 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. It is submitted that from perusal thereof it would appear that only three days time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply which cannot be said to be an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and defend the same.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in the given facts of the case the matter may be remitted to the SubDivisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, Gaya for fresh consideration. In the given facts and circumstances of the case where it is apparent from Annexure-1 that only three days time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply, this court is of the considered opinion that it is not an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 is thus set aside.

Let the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, District - Gaya take a decision afresh after considering the reply of the petitioner and upon giving him an opportunity of hearing, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Since the license of the petitioner has been cancelled without giving him an adequate opportunity of hearing, the license shall be restored forthwith and the consequential benefits

Patna High Court CWJC No.1936 of 2019(2) dt.22-02-2019 3/3 shall follow subject to the final decision of the Sub-Divisional Authority, Gaya.

This Writ Application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U