Sachidanand Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16292 of 2017 =========================================================== Sachidanand Sharma Son of late Narsingh Singh, Resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S. Sherghati, District Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary Food and Civil Supplies, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. District Magistrate, Gaya.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya.

4. District Supply Officer, Gaya.

5. Block Supply Officer, Sherghati, Gaya.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarnath Singh Mr. Bibhuti Narayan, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5 Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-03-2018 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. 137 dated 18.09.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the license of P.D.S. Shop of the petitioner bearing no. 07/2016 has been cancelled with immediate effect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 is unsustainable as the same is a non-speaking order. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar vs. The State

Patna High Court CWJC No.16292 of 2017 dt.19-03-2018 of Bihar and others, 1999 (1) BLJ 540, in which it was observed that absence of any reason in the order is a serious lacuna in the impugned order as the same shows a complete non-application of mind on the part of the licensing authority. The said decision has also been followed in Sita Ram Keshri vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2012 (2) PLJR 719.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that instead of availing the statutory remedy by way of appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court straightway. Moreover, it is pointed out that the petitioner has raised frivolous ground as evident from the supplementary affidavit wherein it has been contended that the show cause notice does not specify the purpose for which it is issued whether for suspension or for cancellation of the license. A bare perusal of the show cause notice itself discloses that the same has been issued for cancellation of the petitioner's license.

5. Having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is admitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with the enquiry report and the petitioner duly filed his reply thereto. In the impugned order the licensing authority has taken note of the show cause reply of the petitioner and also of the various affidavits filed by the consumers on which the petitioner has placed reliance but has chosen to disbelieve the same. It is therefore not a case where no reason has been assigned in the order rather it is a

Patna High Court CWJC No.16292 of 2017 dt.19-03-2018 case where the show cause reply of the petitioner has not been accepted after disbelieving the materials brought on record by the petitioner. The decision relied on by the petitioner are therefore not applicable in the instant case.

6. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 21.03.2018 Transmission Date N.A.