← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/18388/2017allowed

Most. Jagia Devi @ Jagia Devi v. The Principal Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies Corporation And ORS

2018-01-04Mr. Justice Vikash Jain4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18388 of 2017 =========================================================== Most. Jagia Devi @ Jagia Devi, Wife of Late Bisun Yadav Resident of VillageGamhari, P.S.- Fatehpur, Jaipur, District-Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Bihar at Patna.

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Licensing Authority, Sadar Gaya, P.S.- Sadar Gaya, District-Gaya

3. The District Supply Officer, Gaya, District-Gaya

4. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Gaya, District-Gaya.

5. The Assistant Godown Manager, Fatehpur, P.S.-Fatehpur, District-Gaya.

6. The Circle Officer, Fatehpur, P.S.- Fatehpur, District-Gaya .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG 5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs - "(i) That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order/directions in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the memo no. 734 Go dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ application) passed by the S.D.O. Sadar Gaya, respondent no. 2 by which the licensing authority has been pleased to cancel the Public Distribution license No. 68/16 (Old License No. 02/2008) of the petitioner as there is violation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and section 10(3) of the Public Distribution Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as "P.D.S. Act"

2/4 for the sake of brevity), other act and thus the license has been cancelled under Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980; on the ground that the petitioner has not been served the copy of the enquiry report or the statement of the charge or ever served the notice;

(ii) That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order/directions in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the memo no. 99/A dated 10.02.2016 passed by the S.D.O., Bikramganj, respondent no. 2 as there is violation of the principles of natural justice by not supplying the enquiry report or the statement of charge and in a routine manner, the order of cancellation of the P.D.S dealership has been ordered against the petitioner;

(iii) That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order/directions in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the memo no. 734/Go dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ application) passed by the S.D.O. Sadar Gaya, respondent no. 2 as there is no violation of the Section 3(1) of the National Food Security Act, 2013 nor any provisions of the said act is applicable against the petitioner thus the action taken by the respondent is wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in the eye of law;

(iv) That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order/directions in the nature of Mandamus for a direction to restore the Public Distribution licence No. 68 of 2016 (Old License no. 02/2008);

(v) And for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may

3/4 be found to be entitled to in the present facts and circumstances of the case."

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 as well as the statement of the charges were not made available to the petitioner and she 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 paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the impugned order of cancellation of licence has been passed without providing a copy of the enquiry report as well as the statement of the charges 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 as well as the statement of the charges 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 nonsupply of the enquiry report as well as the statement of the charges to the petitioner has resulted in violation of natural justice and thus the decision making process stands vitiated. The impugned order dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-2) is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya (respondent no. 2) for taking decision afresh in the matter after supplying a copy of the

4/4 enquiry report as well as the statement of the charges 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. 2.

6. It is made clear that in case the stand of the petitioner denying receipt of the enquiry report as well as the statement of the charges 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) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 07.01.2018 Transmission Date N.A.