Gajendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15827 of 2016 =================================================== Gajendra Singh, Son of Late Tapeshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Khajuri, Police Station Ghatho, District - Samastipur (Bihar) Petitioner.

Versus

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

2. District Magistrate - Cum - Collector, Samastipur.

3. Sub - Divisional Officer, Samastipur.

4. Block Development officer, Sarairanja, Samastipur... Respondents. =================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Shekhar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC4 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Samastipur as contained in Annexure-5 by which the PDS licence was cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Samastipur, as contained in Annexure-6 by which Appeal No. 27 of 2016 has been dismissed.

The sole ground raised by the petitioner at the time of hearing is that the show cause notice is vague as it has not been issued for the purpose of cancellation of licence. The Clause 7(ii) of the PDS (Control) Order, 2001 lays down in clear terms that

Patna High Court CWJC No.15827 of 2016 dt.01-12-2016 before cancellation of licence reasonable opportunity should be granted to the licensee to reply that it is against the proposed cancellation.

I find force in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that show cause notice only discloses that if he does not submit his reply then action would be taken in accordance with law. Thus, in my view, the aforesaid show cause notice is vague. The Clause 7(ii) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 lays down in clear terms that before cancellation of licence reasonable opportunity should be granted to the licensee to reply that it is against the proposed cancellation.

The issue is no longer res integra as it is well settled that for cancellation of P.D.S. licence under Clause 7 (ii) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, a show cause notice for proposed cancellation has to be issued so that a proper reply could be filed by the licencee. A vague notice without specifying the purpose for which it is being issued, would not be sufficient. A reference in this regard is made to a decision of this Court dated 19.01.2016 passed in CWJC No.6826/2015. Accordingly, in my view, the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15827 of 2016 dt.01-12-2016 In the result, this writ application succeeds. The impugned orders as contained in Annexure-5 and 6 are quashed and set aside.

Since there was no notice for cancellation of licence, the petitioner's licence is to be restored immediately. However, this order would not come in the way of the licensing authority in initiation of any fresh proceeding, if it so desires.

Vikash/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.02.2017 Transmission Date NA