Sushil Prasad Yaday @ Sushil Yaday v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4379 of 2015 =========================================================== Sushil Prasad Yaday @ Sushil Yaday Son of Late Badri Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Sarua , Post- Kamdeodih, P.S. - Katoria, District - Banka. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary , Food and Consumer Protection Department , Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate , Banka , District- Banka.

3. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Banka, District- Banka. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Kumar No.2, SC-17 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"(A) Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka vide Memo No. 289 dated 16.02.2015 contained in Annexure-1 whereby and whereunder licence of the petitioner's Fair Price shop bearing No. 59/12 has been cancelled.

(B) A mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the petitioner's licence as before and to make allotment for the petitioner's shop.

(C) Any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case may be granted to him."

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 paragraph-9 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 has 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 in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

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 16.02.2015 (Annexure-1) is quashed and the matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka 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) Md. Ibrarul/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 19.01.2018 Transmission Date N.A.